Case: GALLAGHER, LOANE & CO. v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Abbreviation: Gallagher, Loane & Co. v. District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1888-02-06
Docket Number: 
Citation: 23 Ct. Cl. 493
Volume: 23
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: GALLAGHER, LOANE & CO. v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Judges: 
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
GALLAGHER, LOANE & CO. v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
(19 C., Cls. R., 564; 124 U. S. R., 505.)
On the defendants’ Appeal.
A contract is made for the continuation of a sewer, the construction and size of the new work to be similar to the old. But the specifications do not agree, some of the variations being to the advantage of one party and some to the advantage of the other. The parties disregard the specifications and the work goes on according to the sample of the old sewer, until a new engineer makes deductions for variations unfavorable to the defendant. The contract requires “ connections for lateral sewers.” Connecting links are rendered necessary by a change-in the direction of the main sewer. The en- ' g-ineer orders extra foundations and a perpendicular apron wall at the mouth of the sewer; also man-holes; also a cut-stone facade. After the work begins the contractors offer $1 a perch “for all the stone in the old canal,” it being mutually supposed that it can be used in the work. The engineer.rejects it, the contractors cease to excavate, and leave it in the defendant’s possession.
The court below decides:
(1) Where a contract requires work to he done according to sample and specifications, and, the two being irreconcilable, the engineer in charge orders a modification to which the contractors assent, the modified work must be regarded as performed and accepted at the contract price.
(2) The term “ connections for lateral sewers” in a contract means proper openings and the joining of lateral sewers thereto, but not the construction of links necessary to bring the lateral within joining proximity of the main sewer.
(3) Í!$I13 a foot as fall compensation” for building a sewer “in all respects complete” must be deemed to include extra foundations and a perpendicular apron wall at the mouth of the sewer rendered necessary by the character of the soil.
(4) A cut-stone fagade ordered by the defendant’s engineer, if merely ornamental, can not be deemed a requirement of a contract unless specified therein.
(5) A contract to complete a sewer in good, firm, and substantial manner must be deemed to include ordinary man-holes.
(6) An agreement that damages arising from unforeseen difficulties shall be sustained by the contractor covers unforeseen expense in carrying the work under the track of a railroad.
(7) Where a contractor proposes to purchase stone on the defendant’s land, it being mutually supposed .that it is suitable for his work, but the defendant’s engineer subsequently rejects it and,the contractor leaves it on the ground, he will be held liable for only so much as he used.
(8) Where the site of the work has been changed by mutual consent, apro-vision in the contract requiring the contractor to do certain work upon the original site can not be enforced.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Matthews
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 6, 1888.