Case Name: MERRILL-RUCKGABER COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-10
Citations: 51 Ct. Cl. 495
Docket Number: 
Parties: MERRILL-RUCKGABER COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 495–495

Head Matter:
MERRILL-RUCKGABER COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
[49 O. Ols. It., 553; 241 U. S. R„ 387.]
On the plaintiff’s appeal.
The Government entered into a contract with the plaintiff to do certain construction work in the city of New York in accordance with plans and specifications made a part of the contract, and this suit is brought to recover compensation for work alleged to be extra or additional to that covered by the contract.
The court below decides:
Where the contract between the parties clearly refers to a particular building, the main rear wall of which was to be underpinned, the contractor could not be required to underpin another and distinct building under the provision of the contract that “the decision of the Supervising Architect as to the proper interpretation of the drawings and specifications shall be final.”
The parties to a contract may agree to submit differences of views in the interpretation of drawings and specifications to the decision of an architect or engineer, and the validity of such an agreement is unquestionable in the absence of bad faith, fraud, or a failure to exercise an honest judgment.
In construing a contract the court will ascertain the intention of the parties and to that end will, as far as possible, ascertain the situation of the parties, as well as the purposes had in view at the time the contract was entered into.
To ascertain the intention of a contract it is not lawful to disassociate a single phrase, term, or word from the context and give to it a meaning independent of the other terms of the instrument.
Where reading the whole contract it seems its intention was to provide for or require certain work to be done, the contractor is not entitled to recover compensation additional to the contract price for performing said work.
The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court June 5, 1916.