#### THE BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[51 C. Cls., 394; 246 U. S., 523.]

Plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendants for the delivery of certain armor plates for the use of battleships. Pursuant to the provisions of Article XV of the contract the plaintiff furnished a bond in the penal sum of $195,000, it being provided in such article that “ *at the end of each*
      *623
      *calendar year the amount of such bond may be reduced to correspond to the estimated cost of armor then unfurnished under this contract.”*All of the armor plate called for in the contract was delivered on or before May 2, 1911. No reduction of the bond was requested by plaintiff until January 27, 1912. A second bond was thereupon furnished by the plaintiff in the sum of $3,500 conditioned for the replacement of any armor plates of the fire-control tower that might prove defective, the defendants agreeing to consider the original bond as fulfilled, but refused to cancel the same. On March 9, 1912, the Secretary of the Navy offered to cancel the original bond if plaintiff would furnish a third bond in the sum of $30,000 conditioned for the fulfillment of the plaintiff’s obligation to furnish replacing plates under the contract. This bond was furnished and the original bond of $195,000 was considered as superseded.

The court below decides :

The bond required by Article XV was only for the *provisional*delivery of the armor plate as required by the contract and had no reference to replacement of such armor as might prove defective, as the word “ *delivery,”*as used in other parts of the contract, had reference only to such conditional delivery. The defendants were secured from loss by the terms of section 3 of Article XIII providing that there shall be a reservation of 10 per cent from the price of each group of armor delivered to be retained until the group shall have been completed, and “ *that the reservation on the last group * *** *shall be retained until all the armor plate furnished for such vessel has been in place for a period of sirs months.”*

It being elementary that where the language of an instrument requires construction it shall be taken most strongly against the party preparing the instrument, *Held*that intermediate reduction of the bond was required by the contract and it was not intended that the bond should be in force until all defective plates had been delivered and accepted.

But the full conditions of the bond having been complied with on ■ , May 2,1911, when the last armor was provisionally delivered and accepted, any further expense in carrying the bond after that date was a voluntary act on the part of the plaintiff and the expense incurred thereby is not a charge against the defendants.

The expense of the bond of $30,000 to the plaintiff conditioned for the replacement of defective plates was unnecessary, as it does not appear that plaintiff was threatened with the deprivation of any right by the defendants or with the annulment of its contract and that such expense was incurred voluntarily and *624without protest, and the arrangement being entirely satisfactory to plaintiff, there can be no recovery therefor.

The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Brakdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 15, 1918.