Hongkong & Whampoa Dock Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: In the case of Boardman v. Lessees, etc., the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice McLean, and construing a patent for land, said: “ The meaning of the parties must be ascertained by the tenor of the writing and not by looking at a part of it.” 6 Pet., 318, 345. The case of O’Brien v. Miller was an action on a bottomry bond. In that case one of the parties claimed that one clause of the contract was controlling.
Read the full summary
The Reporter’s statement of the case: In the case of Boardman v. Lessees, etc., the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice McLean, and construing a patent for land, said: “ The meaning of the parties must be ascertained by the tenor of the writing and not by looking at a part of it.” 6 Pet., 318, 345. The case of O’Brien v. Miller was an action on a bottomry bond. In that case one of the parties claimed that one clause of the contract was controlling. The Supreme Court, in discussing the principles for the construction of contracts, and speaking through Mr. Justice White, said: “ There…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice
The plaintiff had two contracts with the defendants, one dated June 24, 1909, and the other dated June 30, 1909, and *219both of them providing for the construction and delivery of boats known as lorchas. The first contract was for six steel lorchas and the second contract was for four wooden lorchas. The deliveries were to be made to the chief quartermaster, Philippine Division, in Manila Bay, and the dates of the contemplated deliveries were mentioned in tbe contracts. One of the steel lorchas was delivered ahead of time and three of the wooden lorchas were delivered ahead of time. Two of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- O'BRIEN v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Calderon v. Atlas Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Reed v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jefferson Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
- K E C O Industries, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
- Hotpoint Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
- Breese Burners, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
- Padilla v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.