Legal Opinion

McCloskey ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 18, 1928No. C-975PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGeeeN, Judge

It appears without dispute that plaintiff entered into a contract to construct for the defendant a building at West Point, New York. The plaintiff undertook the work, and with the aid of the surety on its bond completed it, but the delays which were incurred in its completion resulted in a greatly enhanced cost of labor and materials over and above what he had anticipated, and he and the bonding company incurred a large loss. Claiming that the defendant was responsible for these delays and the increased cost, this suit *124has been brought by plaintiff in part for the use of the surety on its…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. H. E. Crook Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. H. E. Crook Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1924
  3. Goldstone v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1925

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. HW Nelson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
  2. ACE Constructors, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
  3. System Fuels, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  4. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
  5. Houston Ready-Cut House Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API