Case Name: Philemon B. Hawkins, appellant, v. The United States, appellees
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1877-11-12
Citations: 13 Ct. Cl. 516
Docket Number: 
Parties: Philemon B. Hawkins, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
HAWKINS’S CASE.
(12 C. Cls. R., 181; 96 U. S. R., 689.)
Philemon B. Hawkins, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
On the claimant’s Appeal.
A contract made by the Supervising Architect of the Treasury provides for the delivery of 1,000 cubic yards of “rubble-stone” for the court-house at Ealeigh, at $5 a yard “net measurement in tbe building.” The superintendent there, without authority, builds the wall of “ranged rubble” or “broken ashlar,” a better but more expensive wall. Some of the rubble-stone already delivered, the superintendent dresses down far a ranged rubble toall. Se then rejects rubble-stone, and requires the claimant to deliver ranged rubble. The claimant objects, but performs, without notifying the Supervising Architect that he shall demand payment for ranged rubble. The Supervising Architect remains in ignorance of the change until it is too late to return to the original design. The claimant brings his action for ranged rubble-stone, worth $12.50 a yard, and for his losses on the rubble-stone rejected and dressed down.
Tlie court below holds: (1) That, by not notifying the Supervising Architect before furnishing- the more expensive stone, the claimant was restricted to the contract price; (2) That, for the stone rejected by the superintendent, he should recover Ms damages; (3) That for the stone dressed down by the superintendent he should recover what it would measure in the wall as contemplated by the contract. Judgment for the claimant to this extent. The claimant appeals.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed and upon the same grounds. The principles governing- the alteration of express contracts and the right of a party to recover upon an implied contract discussed at length.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Clifford delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, November 12, 1877.