Case: THE UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC DREDGING COMPANY, WALTER B. BROOKS, AGENT
Abbreviation: United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co.
Decision Date: 1920-04-26
Docket Number: 
Citation: 55 Ct. Cl. 519
Volume: 55
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC DREDGING COMPANY, WALTER B. BROOKS, AGENT.
Judges: 
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
THE UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC DREDGING COMPANY, WALTER B. BROOKS, AGENT.
[53 C. Cls., 490 ; 253 U. S., 1.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
The specifications upon which a dredging contract was based described the materials to be removed as believed by the Government to be mainly mud and fine sand; declined to guarantee the accuracy of the description; required bidders to examine and decide for themselves; referred them to maps exhibiting results of test borings made by the Government, confirming the description; declined to guarantee that such borings actually represented the character of the bottom over the entire vicinity in which they were taken, but expressed the Government’s belief that the general information thereby given was trustworthy. The representations were deceptive in that the test borings gave information to the Government not imparted to bidders of materials more difficult to excavate than those shown by the maps and specifications.
Held: (1) That a contractor which relied upon such representations of the results of the borings and of the Government’s belief based thereon, and whose reliance was confirmed by the Government’s approval of its plant — adapted only to the lighter materials and submitted for inspection as to its adequacy pursuant to the specifications — was entitled to stop work after part performance and recover the difference between the cost of the excavation done and the amount received under the contract.
(2) That this right was not lost by proceeding with the work and entering into a supplementary contract, after the heavier materials were encountered, but before the .contractor learned of the results of the test borings and that they were inadequate.
(3) That the cause of action was in contract, not in tort.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 26,1920.