Case: THE UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS A. GIBBONS, JR.
Abbreviation: United States v. Gibbons
Decision Date: 1883-11-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 19 Ct. Cl. 705
Volume: 19
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS A. GIBBONS, JR.
Judges: 
Pages: 705–705

Head Matter:
THE UNITED STATES v. FRANCIS A. GIBBONS, JR.
(15 C. Cls. R., 174; 109 U. S. R., 200.)
On the defendants’ Appeal.
Buildings at the Norfolk navy-yard are burnt. The officers remove the injured parts of the walls. What is left standing is supposed to be fit to build upon. Bids are invited and specifications shown, which say, “walls noio standing that were uninjured by the fire will remain and be carried up." The claimant makes a bid and is awarded the contract. After he begins work, the commanding officer orders that one-third of the remaining portion of the walls be removed and new work substituted.
The court below decides—
(1.) Where a building contract is ambiguous as to which party shall be responsible for the fitness of old walls partially destroyed by fire, the condition in which they were delivered to the builder is a fact of interpretation.
(2.) Where a builder agrees to build a house and have it “fit for use and occupation,"'he is responsible for everything; but where he agrees to complete a partially-existing building, his responsibility for the fitness of old walls which he did not contribute must depend upon a specific provision to that effeci.
(3.) A clause in a building contract, ‘ ‘ The foundations and the bride walls now standing that were uninjured by the fire will remain and be carried up to the height designated on the plan by new work,” is a doubtful expression which should be construed against the party who prepared the contract and used the language.
(4.) Where a builder’s claim for extra work is really a claim for extra expense thrown upon him by the owner, or where it cannot be determined wbat is extra work until the contract work be done, the statute of limitations will not begin to run against the demand for extra work so long as the contract remains executory.
(5.) Where a building contract contemplates extra work, and provides that payment shall be by certain specific installments, and then that the balance which may become due shall not be paid until the entire work be completed, no action will lie for the extra work while the contract remains executory, nor will the statute of limitations begin to run.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Matthews
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, November 12, 1883.