Case ID: us-ct-cl_44/html/0592-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE BOWERS HYDRAULIC DREDGING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [43 C. Cls. R., 214; 211 U. S. R., 176.]
    
      On the Claimant's Appeal.
    
    Tlie claimant is to be paid by tbe cubic yard for dredging. Tbe quantity excavated is to be determined by measurements made by tbe engineer in charge before tbe work begins and after it is completed. “ Worlc Hone outside of the designated lines of excavation or below the specified depth will not he paid for." Tbe engineer in making measurements treats tbe channel as a prism with vertical sides and horizontal bottom and tbe vertical sides as tbe “ designated lines of excavation,” and refuses to allow for “ slope measurements." Tbe contractor protests. Tbe decision is made “ in conformity with the instructions received from the Ghicf of Engineers.”
    
    The court below decides:
    I.A provision in a contract that tbe decision of the engineer in charge is to be final entitles tbe contractor to tbe decision of the engineer, but does not inhibit him from seeking information from bis superior officer upon which to base bis decision, provided, only, that tbe decision rendered by him is bis own. And when tbe facts do not indicate that the engineer’s decision was not his own the court must regard it as final.
    II.When tbe contract provides that tbe material removed by dredging “ will he paid for hy the euhic yard, measured in place hy surveys made before .dredging is commenced and after it is completed," it prescribes tbe method by which tbe quantity excavated is to be determined.
    III. Under such a contract material falling within the designated lines during the work from tbe sides of the excavation can not be measured in place by tbe surveys prescribed by the contract and consequently is not to be paid for.
    IV. Where tbe contract prescribed tbe basis and method of measurement, another method, though customary, can not be the basis of recovery; and expert testimony is not admissible to explain language which needs no explanation.
    V.When tbe advertisement to tbe contractors says that the bidders shall be expected to examine tbe drawings and to make estimates'of quantities for themselves, it is their duty to do so before making their bids, and a misunderstanding growing out of their neglect to do so can not prejudice tbe defendants.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 30, 1908.