Industrial Engineering Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the CourtLittleton, Judge
The facts with reference to the question here involved are set forth in the findings, and the provisions of Contract art. 11 are quoted in finding 7.
On July 17, 1936, plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Cauldwell-Wingate Company, who had thereto*59fore entered into a contract with the defendant for the construction of superstructures for Harlem .Kiver houses, project H-1302, New York City. The contract of plaintiff with the prime contractor called for the construction of the floor system, composed of columns, slabs, and beams, all of reinforced concrete, resting on the exterior walls…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ellis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Lewman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1906
- Penn Bridge Co. v. Kershaw CountyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1915
- United States v. GarbishSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- WRB Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
- Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- Rolin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
- Jet Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
- Universal Contracting & Brick Pointing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990