Case ID: us_165/html/0340-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Peckham", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HALL.
    APPEAL FROM .THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
    No. 619.
    Submitted January 4, 1897.
    Decided February 15, 1897.
    
      District of Columbia v. Johnson, 165 U. S. 330, approved and followed.
    The case is stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dodge and Mr. Special Assistant Attorney Howard for appellant.
    
      Mr. Edwin 'Forrest for- appellee.
   Mr. Justice Peckham

delivered the opinion of. the court.

This another of the same character of actions as those above disposed of. Hall was one of the contractors for doing-work of the same nature, and filed his petition under the act of 1880 in December of that year: In that petition he alleged that he had done certain work and that he was' paid for his-work, under his contract, by certain certificates which were worth only fifty per cent of their face value, and which he consented to receive only at that rate, and he asked for judgment for the other fifty per cent of his contract price. He failed in the primary object of that suit, but he did recover on some other ground a small judgment of about one thousand dollars, which was ^entered June 1, 1885. Subsequently, and in.pursuance of the act of 1895, he applied for a new trial for the purpose of claiming the “ board rates ” compensation for the work done by him at contract prices, under circumstances mentioned in the foregoing cases. The Court of Claims gave judgment in his favor for that difference between the two rates, and found that under the true intent and meaning of the acts of 1895 and 1880 the sum for which it gave judgment “ became due and payable on the 1st of January, 1877,” which. \Vas the date when the plaintiff had-completed his work under the contract^ ' 31 C. Cl. 376.

vFor the reasons mentioned in the foregoing cases, the judg ment of the Court of Claims in this case must also be

' Reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion.