Case Name: R. R. HALLMAN AND N. W. HALLMAN, TRADING AS HALLMAN BROTHERS, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1946-11-04
Citations: 107 Ct. Cl. 555
Docket Number: No. 47092
Parties: R. R. HALLMAN AND N. W. HALLMAN, TRADING AS HALLMAN BROTHERS, v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Whaley, Chief Justice, concurs.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 555–558

Head Matter:
R. R. HALLMAN AND N. W. HALLMAN, TRADING AS HALLMAN BROTHERS, v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 47092.
Decided November 4, 1946]
Mr. P. J. J. Nioolaides for the plaintiff. Mr. William F. Kelly was on the brief.
Mr. S. R. Gamer, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General John F. Sonnett, for the defendant.
Defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s amended petition overruled without prejudice March 5, 1947, Judge Whitaker dissenting.

Opinion:
Whitakee, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiffs had a contract with defendant for the construction of some buildings at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, outside of Chattanooga, Tennessee. After plaintiffs submitted their bid the governing authorities at the Post promulgated a traffic regulation requiring vehicular trafile to come to a stop in the vicinity of troops moving in the streets. Plaintiffs say this regulation increased their cost of performance, and for this they sue.
The Government demurs because it says this regulation was of general application and was issued in the performance of a governmental function, to wit, the regulation of traffic, and for such an act the government is not liable.
This is a good defense. Horowitz v. United States, 267 U. S. 458; Deming v. United States, 1 C. Cls. 190; Jones and Brown v. United States, 1 C. Cls. 383; Wilson v. United States, 11 C. Cls. 513; Gothwaite v. United States, 102 C. Cls. 400; Standard Accident Ins. Co. et al. v. United States, 103 C. Cls. 607, cert. den., 326 U. S. 729.
Plaintiffs also say they are entitled to recover under article 4 of the contract relative to changed conditions. Article 4 relates to changed physical conditions at the site of the wotk; it has no reference to changed governmental, political or economic conditions. Plaintiffs could hardly recover because the commandant of the post was changed from a mild-tempered old gentleman to an old "Blood and Guts"; or that the Democratic Administration was succeeded by a Republican Administration; or that the interest rate had changed; or because of the amalgamation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Federation of Labor. These would be changed conditions, indeed, and might affect the cost of performance of the contract, but neither they nor a change in traffic regulations were in the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the so-called agreement embodied in article 4.
The defendant's demurrer is sustained and plaintiffs' petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.
Whaley, Chief Justice, concurs.