Case ID: us-ct-cl_22/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chief Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PATRICK CULLINANE’S EXECUTORS v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    (18 C. Cls. R., 577 ; 119 U. S. R., 339.)
    
      On the claimants' Appeal.
    
    The claimant did work for the District of Columbia under several contracts with the Board of Public Works, and there was due him therefor an unsettled balance, the amount of which was in controversy on account of a claim against him for damages by reason of the alleged bad condition of some of the work. The parties entered into a written agreement reciting the differences between them and agreeing that there should bededucted $15,000 from the claimant’s account, and that he should be paid the balance in bonds of the District. He was thereupon paid $113,950 in said bonds. He brings this suit in equity to reform said agreement, averring that it should have contained, according to the understanding of both parties, a provision that “ said bonds should be at par or equivalent in cash, and if not, the Board would pay in cash the difference between the actual value and the face value.” He alleges a loss of $08,000 by the depreciation of the bonds which he claims to be due him from the District under the agreement so reformed.
    The court below decides:
    (1) The court, under its equity jurisdiction conferred by the District Claims Act (21 Stat. L., 284), will reform a contract of the Board of Public Works so as to make it conform to the precise intent of the parties, when a mistake is clearly proved.
    (2) But if the evidence leaves tbe matter in doubt so that the mistake is not made entirely i>lain, equity will withhold relief, on the ground that the written paper must he treated as a full and correct expression of the intent of the parties until the contrary is established beyond reasonable controversy.
    (3) The contract not being reformed, the claimant can not recover on account of the depreciation of the bonds which he accepted in payment of his demand.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, December 13, 1886.