Brinck v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The engineers, in taking the action they did in regard to the making up and approval of the final estimate, and in allowing and disallowing material as class 2, and in testing therefor, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and failed to exercise honest judgments, and made such gross mistakes jn performing their duties as necessarily to imply bad faith on their parts and the part of each of them.
Read the full summary
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The engineers, in taking the action they did in regard to the making up and approval of the final estimate, and in allowing and disallowing material as class 2, and in testing therefor, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and failed to exercise honest judgments, and made such gross mistakes jn performing their duties as necessarily to imply bad faith on their parts and the part of each of them. The above is essentially a quotation from the amended petition. It is a sufficient allegation, we contend, to avoid the finality of the engineers’ decision, which…
1Opinion of the CourtHat, Judge
This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover an amount alleged to be due them on their contract with the defendants. The plaintiffs agreed with the United States to construct and complete certain canals, branches, and structures on the Minidoka project, in the State of Idaho. Work was begun under the contract in July, 1905, and was completed and accepted on December 4, 1906.
The matter in dispute is the quantity of class 2 material which the plaintiffs handled during the performance of their contract. The specifications provided for four classes of: material. Class 1 was all material…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kihlberg v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Martinsburg & Potomac Railroad v. MarchSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- United States v. GleasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Sweeney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Chicago, Santa Fé & California Railroad v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Penn Bridge Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1924
- Moran Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1925
- C. L. Maguire Petroleum Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1929
- Pelton Water Wheel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1919
- Coast Coaling & Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1925
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.