J. E. Hathaway & Co. v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. The case is stated in the opinion. Here was a month taken, at the best season of the year for working, simply to obtain - record evidence of the authority of the attorney in fact of the surety company to sign the contract. The delay was wholly on the part of the Government. . "Whether styled “reasonable” or “unreasonable,” it was a delay for which the contractor was in no degree responsible.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. The case is stated in the opinion. Here was a month taken, at the best season of the year for working, simply to obtain - record evidence of the authority of the attorney in fact of the surety company to sign the contract. The delay was wholly on the part of the Government. . "Whether styled “reasonable” or “unreasonable,” it was a delay for which the contractor was in no degree responsible. That the delay in signing the contract on the part of the Government was reasonable is, it is submitted, not a finding of fact but a conclusion of law. United States v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandéis
delivered the opinion of the court.
The United States solicited sealed proposals .for the repair of a revetment in Michigan; and J. E. Hathaway & Company became the successful bidders. Under a contract, dated May 11, 1910, they agreed to complete the work by December 1, 1910. It was not completed until 68 days later. Of this delay the Government conceded that 29 days were attributable to extra work required by it, and 10 more days were not counted against the contractor, being Sundays and holidays. For the remaining 29 days’ delay the Government deducted from the contract…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Stone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- District of Columbia v. Camden Iron WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wechsler v. Hunt Health Systems, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Robinson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Order of United Commercial Travelers v. ShaneCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Burns v. Hanover InsuranceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Fortune Bridge Co. v. Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.