Case ID: us-ct-cl_60/html/0895-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RICHARD T. GREEN CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. C-22.
    Decided June 1, 1925]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Contract; ewtra worlc; without authority. — Where plaintiff enters into a contract in writing with the United States and makes certain specified repairs to a steamer for a stated consideration, and in addition thereto makes certain repairs which increased the cost, not specified in said contract, without the knowledge or approval of any authorized officer of the Government, it can not recover for' such unauthorized repairs.
    
      The Reporter’s statement of the case:
    
      Mr. Samuel 0. Mairkley for the plaintiff. Messrs. John B. Doyle, Charles L. Fminger, Harrison Clark, and Mantón M. Wyvell were on the brief.
    
      Mr. Dwight E. Rorer, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hermam, J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The plaintiff, Richard T. Green Co., is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts and was engaged in the business of shipbuilding and ship repairing at Chelsea, in said State, in the year 1920.
    II. On the 14th day of June, 1920, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, in writing, for repairs to the steamer General T. S. Jesup. A copy of the contract is made an appendix to these findings and is made a part of this finding by reference. The contracting officer for the Government was Col. L. R. Burgess, C. A. C.
    
      III. The plaintiff was to furnish the material, equipment, facilities, and services required and necessary in making the repairs and to commence the work on or before June 30, 1920, and complete same July 24, 1920.
    The various items of repairs are enumerated and specified in the contract and the price therefor is set out therein, the amount thereof being $7,315.
    IY. The steamer General T. S. Jesup was a single-screw steamer engaged in the service of the Army and was placed in plaintiff’s shipyard on July 6, 1920, and work was immediately commenced thereon. Turner E. McCarty was plaintiff’s foreman or superintendent in charge of the work, and Capt. G. W. P.rout, an officer of the United States Army, employed by the War Department and acting under the orders of Col. L. R. Burgess, contracting officer, was the inspector in charge.
    Y. All repairs and work included in and covered by the contract were made and performed, as were also other repairs and work on the steamer General T. S. Jesup not included or covered by the contract, the latter of which were settled and paid for in full, and the full amount of the contract price for the repairs embraced therein was also paid in full.
    YI. Included in item No. 5 of the contract was the removal of all windows and window frames on both sides of the deckhouse, sometimes designated “shelter deck” of the steamer, and the furnishing and installing, in place thereof, 18 new brass ports, 16 inches in diameter, the removal of all defective ironwork around the window openings, and the replacement thereof with new material of the same quality and thickness as that of the remainder of the house. The window ports were to be blanked up with steel plate, and all defective places in the old plates were to be removed and replaced with new steel plates.
    YII. In making the repairs required on the deckhouse, plaintiff, instead of cutting out and removing defective parts of and places in the steel plates covering the two sides of the house from which the old square windows were to be removed and the new circular windows were to be placed, and repairing and replacing such defective parts and places with new steel plates, removed all the old steel plates covering the said two sides of the deckhouse and replaced same with new plates.
    VIII. Capt. George W. Prout, the inspector in charge of the work, was present when the -work was commenced, and went over the work to be done with plaintiff’s superintendent, Turner S. McCarty, at which time it was decided that two plates were to be removed from the starboard side and renewed with new steel plates, and one plate from the port side removed and renewed with new steel plate, and round holes cut therein to take the dead lights, the plates to be butt-strapped and riveted; the old plates which remained and had square windows in were to be blanked up and round holes cut therein to receive the port lights which Avere called for in the contract.
    IX. Shortly after this investigation and determination of the work required, Captain Prout, the inspector, ay as aivay from the Richard T. Green Co.’s shipyard Avhen the work Avas in progress for four or fNe days, and when he returned to the yard all of the plates had been removed from both the port and starboard' sides of the deckhouse or shelter deck and replaced with neAV plates, properly riveted in place, Avith holes cut round to receNe the port lights.
    X. The first knoAAdedge or information that Captain Prout, the inspector, had of-the intention of the contractor to remove, or that it had removed, all of the steel plates from the íavo sides of the deckhouse and replaced them with neAV plates was upon his return to the yards after the five days’ absence therefrom. His attention had in no manner been called thereto, nor did he consent to or approve the doing thereof. Nor did any officer of defendant or other person representing or acting for the Government have knoAvl-•edge or information of the intention of plaintiff to remove or replace the plates, or that they had been removed or replaced, or consent to or approve the doing thereof.
    XI. Various items of work and repairs other than those enumerated in and coA'ered by the contract were performed and made on the steamer General T. S. Jesujj by the plaintiff for the defendant, and each and all of Avhich Avere ordered and approved by Capt. George W. Front, the inspector in charge, and paid for in full.
    XII. The sum of $2,391, for the recovery of which this-suit is brought, represents and constitutes the reasonable difference between the value, cost, and expense of making the repairs included in and covered by item No. 5 of the contract, in accordance with and in conformity to the requirements of the contra t, and the costs and value of making-such repairs in the manner and form in which they were-actually made.
    The court decided that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
   MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The ¡ffaintiff made certain changes in the work of repairing the steamer which were not called for by the officer in charge, and the facts show that the departure from the provisions of the contract in this regard, whereby the cost of the repairs was increased, was without the knowledge or consent of the inspector in charge, Captain Prout, or the contracting officer, Colonel Burgess, or any other officer authorized or directed by the Government, and that such additional repairs were not approved by any of them. The plaintiff would have discharged its full duty by making the repairs according to the contract and the directions of the inspector or officer in charge. If it chose to make other repairs, the Government is not liable for them. The defendant discharged its obligation by paying the plaintiff the contract price.

Graham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.