Case ID: us-ct-cl_61/html/0025-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Graham, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MANHATTAN SPONGING WORKS v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. C-89]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Contract; authority of officers; retroactive effect; no promise to pay.— Where plaintiff submits a proposal to shrink and press cloth, which is accepted by the Government, and no further agreement either written or oral is entered into between said parties, and cloth is furnished to plaintiff by officers having no-authority to contract and after shrinking and pressing is returned to and paid for by the Government and the price-is afterwards increased, there is no liability on the Government (1) to pay plaintiff damages for failure to furnish a greater quantity; (2) to pay plaintiff the difference between the price originally paid and the increased price; (3) to reimburse plaintiff for insurance premiums on said cloth not requested nor approved; (4) to pay plaintiff for increased' facilities.
    
      The Ref outer’s statement of the case;
    
      Mr. Raymond M. Hudson for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. George T. Stormont, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General William J. Donovan, for the defendant.
    
      Decided June 1, 1925.
    Motion for new trial overruled October 26, 1925.'
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The plaintiff, Manhattan Sponging Works, is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, and was during the period involved in this case engaged in sponging and cleaning. It is the sole owner of the claim sued upon.
    II. The plaintiff company was desirous of obtaining the work of shrinking and pressing certain cloth for the Quartermaster’s Department and, having taken the matter up with the officer in charge at St. Louis, submitted a proposal under date of October 20, 1911, which appears in section 2 of the petition. Captain Yan Schoiock, officer in charge of the depot, replied to such proposal under date of November 19, 1917, his reply following the proposal set out in paragraph 2 of the petition. Captain Yan Schoiock was not a contracting officer. The amount of the goods which was to be furnished was not stated.
    III. From time to time following such offer and acceptance, cloth in small quantities was sent to plaintiff company to be shrunk or pressed. Later the amount of cloth covered by such schedule of prices was increased; the work was done by plaintiff, who made monthly statements thereof to the defendant, and they were approved and paid in full. The schedule of prices was adhered to up to November 1, 1918. At some time in October plaintiff took up the question of increased rates for the work with Captain Mannigan, who had succeeded Captain Yan Schoiock, and with Major Burns, the officer in charge of the depot, and requested that the company be allowed the same prices that were being paid ■by the Philadelphia depot. After ascertaining the prices paid by the Philadelphia depot, these officers agreed to pay the plaintiff according to that scale from and after November 1, 1918, and the plaintiff company was paid on the basis •of the Philadelphia prices from and after November 1, 1918. At no time did any officer of the Government agree to make these Philadelphia prices retroactive.
    IY. It does not appear from the evidence that any officer of the Government agreed to deliver any stated quantity of
    
      goods to be worked upon by plaintiff or that there was- any agreement' between the parties as to the amount of goods that would be furnished. The plaintiff company was not requested by any officer of the Government to enlarge its plant or to increase its facilities, nor was there any agreement by anyone authorized by the Government that insurance upon goods while in possession of the plaintiff would be paid for by the Government. The Government paid the plaintiff all that was owing for the work done.
    The court decided that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
   MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT

The plaintiff claims several items as follows:

(1) Loss sustained on account of the Government’s failure to furnish a designated number of yards of goods; (2) the difference in prices based on the Philadelphia prices, as compared with the St. Louis prices; (8) insurance premiums expended; (4) amounts expended for machinery equipment, etc. The Government had no written contract with the plaintiff except an acceptance of certain prices which plaintiff had offered. There was at no time any agreement as to the amount of goods that was to be furnished nor was there any authority in any officer of the Government to bind them to any such arrangement if it had been made.

The prices were based upon the accepted proposal until some time in October, when they were changed to the Philadelphia basis, and from that time the prices paid the plaintiff were the Philadelphia prices. There was no agreement that these prices would be retroactive.

There was no agreement that the Government would pay for insurance nor was there any obligation on the Government to pay for machinery, equipment, or facilities.

We concur with the conclusion reached by the Board of Contract Adjustment. (See vol. 4, p. 1067.) The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Graham, Judge,

took no part in the decision of this case.