United States v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The facts, which involve the construction of § 3744, Rev. Stat., and the liability of a contractor on a contract with the Government for transportation of coal, are stated in the opinion. Revised Stat., § 3774, is no bar to suit by the Government on executory parol contracts. The statute does not render the contract illegal but only unenforceable. It affects not the validity of the contract but the remedy thereon.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP APPEALS POR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The facts, which involve the construction of § 3744, Rev. Stat., and the liability of a contractor on a contract with the Government for transportation of coal, are stated in the opinion. Revised Stat., § 3774, is no bar to suit by the Government on executory parol contracts. The statute does not render the contract illegal but only unenforceable. It affects not the validity of the contract but the remedy thereon. Clark v. United States, 95 U. S. 539; St. Louis Hay Co. v. United States, 191 U. S. 159; United States v. Andrews, 207…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is a suit by the United States to recover the increased cost of transportation for coal, above a price that the defendant had agreed to accept for the service; the latter having notified the Government that it would not furnish the steamers agreed. There is no dispute as to the facts. On November 9, 1909, the plaintiff requested in writing that the defendant make a tender for the transportation of not less than 8,000 tons of coal from certain Atlantic ports at the option of the plaintiff to Mare Island or San Francisco, with stipulations as to time. On November 13 the defendant submitted…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Clark v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- United States v. R. P. Andrews & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- New York & P. R. S. S. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
3Cited by42 opinions
- Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Keco Industries, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
- Heyer Products Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956
- Hayes International Corporation v. Dr. John L. McLucas Secretary of the Air Force, the Boeing Company, Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Todd Construction, L.P. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.