Case: THE MERCHANTS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1904-12-22
Docket Number: No. 21941
Citation: 40 Ct. Cl. 117
Volume: 40
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE MERCHANTS’ LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 117–133

Head Matter:
THE MERCHANTS’ LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 21941.
Decided December 22, 1904.]
On the Proofs.
A contract for work on the post-office in Washington provides that if through any fault of the defendants the contractor be delayed he- shall be allowed additional time for the completion of his work, but that no claim shall be made by him for damages which may arise out of any delay caused by the defendants.
I. Where a contract provides that for delays caused by the defendants the contractor shall receive a corresponding extension of time in which to complete his work, and that no “ claim shall he made or alloioed for damages which may arise out of any delay caused hy the other party,” the provision is valid and binding, and precludes an action for damages.
II. Where extra time to the contractor is made the equivalent for delay caused by the defendants, and the claimant has not shown that such extra time was refused, there can be no recovery.
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
The following are the facts of the case, as found by the court:
I. On September 25, 1896, the defendant advertised for sealed proposals, to be received until 2 o’clock p. m., October 28,1896, and opened immediately thereafter, for all the labor and materials required for the interior finish of basement, first story, etc., of the United States post-office, Washington, D. 0., in accordance with drawings and specifications, copy of which may be had at the office of the Supervising Architect of the Treasury, or of the superintendent, at Washington. Under said advertisement claimant’s bid of $181,167 ■was the lowest bid received and was, to wit, on October 81, 1896, accepted, and upon the same date the defendant, through the Acting Secretar}' of the Treasury, W. E. Curtis, entered into formal contract with claimant, a copy of which is given in the original petition. The said contract provided, among other things:
“ That the entire work shall be completed within eight (8) months from the date of the approval of the bond hereto attached; that any particular portion of the work herein provided for shall be completed within such reasonable time as may be hereafter definitely specified by the said party of the first part in written notice to the said party of the second part; and that should the said part}' of the second part fail to complete the entire work or any particular portion of the work within the time so specified, then the said party of the second part shall forfeit to the said party of the first part two hundred ($200) dollars per diem, as liquidated damages for each and every day thereafter until the completion of the same; provided, that if, through any fault of the party of the first part the party of the second part is delayed in the execution of the work included in this contract, the party of the second part shall be allowed one day additional to the time above stated for each and every day of such delay so caused, the same to be ascertained by the Supervising Architect; provided further, that no claim shall be made or allowed for damages which may arise out of any delay caused by the party of the first part.”
II. xVfter the approval of the bond of claimant he ordered the various materials necessary, made arrangements to hire labor in order to push the work as rapidly as possible, and placed the contracts as soon as practicable for everything in connection with the work, and the subcontractors were ready to begin work as expeditiously as could be done under the conditions that existed, owing to the progress of work under other contracts, and had all stock to be manufactured and ready for shipment.
The defendant did not accept any proposal for the plumbing, gas piping, etc., until February 4, .1897. The time of completion of this contract was six months, and it included work in part of the building in which claimant was to put in interior finish.
It was March 29, 1897, before the defendant accepted a proposal for boiler plant, low pressure and exhaust steam beating and ventilating apparatus, hot and cold water supply, fire-protection system, - and water-filtering plant, the amount of which contract was $111,375, and the time for completion two hundred and fifty working days; and this contract included work in part of the building Avhere claimant was to put in interior finish.
It was May 29, 1897, before the defendant accepted a proposal to change the location of the roof drain pipe in the southeast vent shaft, and to disconnect the 5-inch soil pipe which is in the way of the smoke duct to be supplied in connection with the heating apparatus, and reconnect the said 5-inch soil pipe in proper position after the smoke duct is completed. This roof drain pipe was in the way of the foundation for the smoke flue, and the cement floor of the vent shaft, which was covered by contract with claimant, could not be laid until the foundation was in place.
It was June 7, 1897, before the defendant accepted a proposal to cut down the ledges of thirty-two granite piers in the basement, eight brick piers, etc., and this cutting was necessary to enable claimant to make flush plaster surfaces at window jambs, and it also affected the finished floor called for in his contract.
June 23, 1897, defendant accepted a proposal from the company putting in the steam-heating apparatus to substitute brick for cast iron that had been specified in the construction of the underground smoke duct, and the placing of part of the concrete floor and of thresholds and trim of doors opening on the same, included in contract with claimant, was dependent upon the placing of this duct.
It was -August 2, 1897, before defendant accepted a proposal for the concrete filling in the first and mezzanine stories, in which stories defendant had contracted with claimant to do all the interior finish.
October 4, 1897, the defendant accepted a proposal from a steam-heating company for correction in grade of sewer on the east side of building, and that this change necessitated some work, principally the changing of piping inside the basement. That the greater part of this work in the basement was underground, and that by the specifications in claimant’s contract with defendant he was not to lay the cement floor in the basement until pipes were in place.
October 23, 1897, defendant accepted a proposal of a steam-heating company for covering down spouts from roof with terra cotta and bricking up unused chases. That the terra cotta was laid around the down spouts only where they passed through the heating chambers, and that the plastering of the heating chambers was included in part of the interior finish contracted for by defendant with claimant.
February 17, 1898, the defendant accepted a proposal for additional plumbing, gas piping, etc., necessitating minor alterations in the draining system in that part of the building in which defendant had contracted with claimant to do the interior finish.
June 20, 1898, defendant accepted a proposal from a steam-heating company for water connection with these closets. This work was temporary, and was afterwards removed.
III. Because of the delay of the Government in letting-contracts for other work of the building, the condition of the building was such that claimant could hot proceed with his work, and he was delayed in the commencement and prosecution of the work, and because of the delay and hindrance above set forth, claimant did not complete his work until a'year after the expiration of the contract time, to wit, July, 1898.
Also on the first and mezzanine floors claimant was delayed in doing work and putting work in place by the poor qualitjr of work which had been done under a former contract and which he had to take, up and remove before he could proceed with other work.
IV. Glass, metal work, finished woodwork,marble-work.— The glass screens and skylight over the post-office working room were all ordered in time and ready to be put in place within the contract time, and the same was also the case' with the metal work, finished woodwork, and the marble-Avork; but none of the same could be put in place because of the defendant’s delays, heretofore cited, in not having other work on the building in such condition that this finished work could be proceeded with.
As to the glass, part of the same was delivered at the building when it was ready to be put up, and, under instructions from the superintendent in charge for the Government, was placed in the Pennsylvania avenue and Twelfth street corner of the working room and adjoining the same.
At that time, in April, 1897, the plumbers and steam-heating men had not started to do their work in this room, and the Government superintendent told claimant that the glass would have to wait a few days for the location of the vents and planks connected with the plumbing and heating, as there might be changes made. However, for some months there svas practically nothing done; and then the steam heating and plumbing and electric workmen commenced their work, and this glass (or a great part of it) had to be moved in order to allow the men to proceed with their work. The glass was packed in closed boxes weighing from 200 to 300 pounds, probably some weighing 1,500 or 2,000 pounds. This moving was done as required by the superintendent. Sometimes he would require claimant to move three or four boxes, sometimes half a dozen, sometimes one. If one was necessary for the purpose it would have to be moved. Claimant would receive notice to move the boxes from place to place, and receive another notice to remove them again. The cost of moving the boxes each time was not very great, but in the aggregate the cost was considerable.
The room was some 200 by 300 feet, and the boxes were moved about thirty or fort}»' times. That claimant did not keep an accurate record of the number of times the boxes were moved, but he estimates the cost of moving of the boxes as the equivalent of fifty laborers at $1.50 per day.
After this first shipment the rest of the. glass was not shipped, but stored at the warehouse of the subcontractor furnishing the same in New York. The boxes at the post-office building were not opened until claimant needed the glass and could put it in place. There was then found to bet quite a number of lights broken. This broken glass claimant was compelled to replace.
Claimant paid for labor in handling and rehandling of boxes in building $75. Claimant’s agent was charged for and agreed to pay for insurance of the glass while stored at his subcontractor’s warehouse $240, and for the storage and handling at the factory $485. The cost of replacing the glass found to be broken in the boxes was $1G0, which' amount claimant has paid, making a total of $900.
The metal work was of copper, to cover the entire skylight, and made to contain and hold the glass of the skylight, which skylight was some 150 by 200 feet long, and it was manufactured and ready to have allowed the claimant to put it up before the expiration of eight months after approval of-his bond, but the building was not ready for such work before January, 1898, and claimant ordered his subcontractor to hold it, store it, and insure it.
Claimant had no information at any time from the -.Government as to the length of the delay or what it might be, but was given to understand that his work was wanted when building should be ready. At the time of putting this work in place at the post-office building business was beginning to pick up, and labor was much higher than in the early spring of 1897. At the time the metal work was actually put up labor was scarce and cost 50 cents per day more per man. The cost of labor for handling and rehandling this manufactured metal work, while it was stored, rendered necessary in order that the subcontractor could proceed witli other work, was $180. The cost of six months’ storage of the manufactured material was $90, and the additional cost of skilled labor at the time of the erecting of this skylight, viz, of ten men for sixty days was 50 cents per day, or $300, or a total of $570; all of which claimant is obligated to pay.
The finished woodwork, under claimant’s contract with defendant, included all the interior finish called for under the specifications- — the heavy post-office screens, all the doors, windows, wainscoting, and, in fact, all the hard woodwork. These screens are heavy wood partitions made for the purpose of separating the working force from the general public. This woodwork was all made in Cincinnati by the Robert Mitchell Furniture Company. It was made, finished, and ready for shipment in ample time to have been put up during the eight months after bond approved, and it was inspected by the Government inspectors. But because of the conditions already cited, as to the condition of the building, this woodwork was stored for a little over eight months. The manufacturers rendered á bill for the extra handling, hauling, and cleaning of this woodwork for $350, for storage for eight months, $800; for fire insurance5 at a valuation of $30,000, for $480; a total of $1,630, all of which claimant’s agent agreed to pay.
The contract for interior finish made by defendant with claimant included all the marble for the interior and first floor and corridors of the post-office building, amounting to over $40,000 worth of marble. This, marble-work was' made by Sherman & Flavin, Chicago, Ill., was ready in ample time to have been put up within eight months after approval of bond, but the building was not in a condition to receive it. But the same conditions as to fitness to receive the work existed in regard to this marble as existed in regard to the other interior finish, and the marble was stored for eight months. Sherman & Flavin rendered to claimant a bill- for rehandling the same, $1,397.50; and for insurance for eight months, $267, making a total of $1,664.50, which claimant's agent agreed to pay.
V. The claimant, after the contract, entered into a contract with Lawrence Grace, of Cincinnati, Ohio, to do the plastering called for bjr the contract. The original contract with Grace was $10,500. After the contract was made the said Grace bought material, sent a superintendent to Washington, and the necessary men to start the Avork, but owing to the condition of the building he was unable to proceed. Nevertheless claimant was ordered, about the 1st of July, 1897, to start plastering. Hardly had claimant made a start, when on July 15 or 16 he was ordered by the Government to suspend all work of plastering, leaving the men who were at work on the job with nothing to do.
Payments were made to this subcontractor, Grace, about the first of each month for work performed by him, less the customary 10 per cent. This was estimated by the Government superintendent, and claimant paid the subcontractor according to the said estimate. At the time when claimant was ordered to suspend work the building was in such condition that it was impossible to proceed further, even by doing the work in the manner that claimant had been proceeding with it in the basement. It was some months before claimant Avas permitted to go on with this work, and that then continued changes were being made from time to time, on account of the changes in the heating and plumbing of the building, which caused claimant additional expense. Before claimant AA'as again permitted to go on, the said Grace had failed and there Avas no money to complete the contract and claimant Avas compelled to complete it for him. Claimant invited bids from other contractors to complete this work, but found that he could complete the contract cheaper by doing it himself; he therefore did complete it, the principal items of doing the Avork consisting of labor and the pay rolls of the men. But the additional cost to claimant was $642.87.
VI. Claimant employed J. B. Perkins, of Washington, to do the rough carpentry work, including the placing of windoAV frames, the laying of floors, amounting in all to $8,616.81. Claimant had knoAvn the said Perkins some ten or tAvelve years; he was a man of limited means and dependent upon the payments that were made him as the work progressed, but was an excellent morkman and had had an extended experience with a firm making a specialty of fine interior finish. Immediately, within thirty or sixty days, after defendant entered into the contract Avitli claimant, claimant was ready to do this Avork and had completed his arrangements to do it. He aftenvards started the Avork sixty or ninety days from the time the contract was signed. A large portion of this Avork Avas done ahead of other work. It Ayas necessary to do it, such as the rough ground to prepare for the plastering, the placing of window frames, etc.
That Avork claimant completed, but the remainder he Avas unable to proceed with until some time later, the work being delayed because the building Avas in such shape that the claimant could not complete this part of his contract. He was ordered to suspend work from time tó time,” and in vieAV of the fact that there avouIc! be certain changes made it Avas not deemed advisable for him to proceed. Even Avork that otherwise he might have been able to proceed with, such as the laying of floors, it was impossible for him to clo. The principal delay was caused on account of the delay of other contracts, such as the contract for heating and plumbing and the electric-wire contract.
This subcontractor, Perkins, was paid, as was the plaster subcontractor, on estimates made by the Government superintendents, less 10 per cent. Perkins was considered an excellent mechanic, but without much capital, and he could not take any other work while this Avas going on, and he had no means of carrying out this work. He got embarrassed in buying the necessary material to such an extent that he skipped the country entirely. The work had been suspended at the time that Perkins abandoned the job, and in October, 1897, claimant took hold of the contract and completed it by employing his own men and buying his OAvn material; and to do this cost the claimant $2,005.71 more than the contract price Avith Perkins.
VII. Claimant Avas prepared at any time he could proceed with the work to do the concreting called for by his contract with defendant. The building Avas so torn up Avith trenches for the heating and plumbing that it Avas impossible to concrete, and Avhen the concreting Avas actually commenced the building Avas in a very bad and unsatisfactory condition for doing the Avork, there never at any one time being more than a little space that could be concreted. To mix and lay concrete in small quantities necessitated the mixing of small quantities and also great loss of time on account of the men doing the work; and it required more time to do a small amount of concreting in patched jobs, leaving one place and going to another, than if it could all have been done at one time. The superintendent in charge ordered claimant to proceed with the concreting.
About 100 cubic yards of this concreting was laid in patch-Avork, making increase in the cost of labor on account of the waste and time that the men lost, as Avell as the loss in mixing the material, there being more or less Avaste every time they mixed a small quantity of cement, because the quantity can not be gauged and it is necessary to mix enough to do the work, for if the cement runs short it makes a bad job. When mixed concreting- has to be used immediately, and if not used right away it dries up and forms a cement which is of no use for any other purpose.
The additional cost of mixing 100 cubic yards in small quantities was $3 per cubic yard, or $300; and that the additional cost of labor in laying concrete in this way amounted to:
One foreman, at $3 per day for CO days_$180
Five laborers, at $1.50 per day for GO days_ 450
making a total of $930.
VIII. Claimant was prepared and ready to proceed with the work called for under his contract. He was delayed in the commencement and prosecution of the work owing to other work not being sufficiently advanced for claimant to go on. It was necessary to have a general manager, a foreman, and a stenographer, and to incur such office expenses as stationery and fuel. The pajr of general manager and of foreman for a period of twelve months was $1,800 each; the pay of the stenographer and typewriter was $600, and office expenses, stationery, fuel, etc., for a period of twelve months was $60.
IX. The performance of the part of the contract for temporary heat and protection to interior finish was delayed, as has been already set forth, so that the plastering could not be completed until November and December, 1897; and at this time of the year the weather was cold; there was danger of the plaster freezing, which required claimant to temporarily close openings, at a cost to him of $174.
X. On March 19, 1897, the defendant submitted to claimant drawings showing certain changes to be made in the post-office screens of the building, for a proposal by claimant as to what deduction he would make for these changes, and on March .20 claimant submitted to the defendant a proposal to make these changes for $840.95. March 31, 1897, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury informed claimant that he had failed to make any deduction, however, for the value of the labor and material omitted by virtue of the change, and that, on the other hand, it was estimated by the Super vising- xlrchitect that the value of the additional labor and material involved amounted to $358.60; add 10 per cent profit, $35.86; total estimated value of the additional work, $39-1.46.
If from this amount is deducted the sum of $75, which represents the estimated value of the labor which is not to be performed on account of the omission of certain work made necessary by the above changes, the net additional amount due claimant for the extra work would be $319.46; which leaves, as between this amount and the amount mentioned in claimant’s proposal, a difference of $521.49. And defendant directed claimant to immediately proceed and complete the contract as modified by the drawings that had been submitted to him shoAving the changes desired, and also informed him that he would be paid $319.46 in addition to the contract price for these modifications, which amount it Avas stated had been estimated by the Supervising Architect to be a fair and reasonable compensation for the additional labor and material involved.
After claimant had been directed,' as above stated, on March 31, 1897, to immediately proceed and complete the contract, he did, on April 9, 1897, submit to defendant another proposal for doing this Avork according to certain representations of the Supervising Architect modifying his requirements for these changes; said proposal being.to do the Avork for $715.22 instead of $840.95, the amount named March 20, 1897. In reply to this proposal claimant was advised by defendant that in addition to the sum of $319.46 allowed him in Department’s letter of March 31, 1897, for these changes, the additional sum'of $51.40 Avould be alloAved for making 47 linear feet of wainscot to exactly match the other paneled-oak Avainscot included in claimant’s contract with defendant. To this claimant replied that he Avould furnish the Avork according to instructions of March 31, 1897, but that his charge for the same Avould be according to his estimate; and he reserved the pmdlege of bringing the question up at a future date.
The difference between $715.22, the amount charged by claimant for this Avork, and $370.86, the amount claimant was allowed and has been paid for this work is $344.36. The changes were worth the amount charged by claimant, and cost him that amount.
XI. July 20, 1897, the defendant requested of claimant a proposal, among other things, for removing rubbish and damaged concrete from the first, mezzanine, and second floors of the building, the specifications providing that the contractor should give rates per square yard for the-two kinds of work (one being the. removal of this damaged concrete) called for in the second story, as the respective amounts of these two classes of work in the second story can not as yet be definitely determined. The contractor is to remove the loose concrete filling and rubbish over the arches of the first, mezzanine, and second floors (except in the toilet rooms, which will not be included in this work), taking off all that can be scraped up with a hoe. Upon request to submit a proposal for this work and before submitting the same, claimant had the building examined, with the superintendent, Mr. Stewart, and scraped the rubbish to determine the depth. And claimant’s representative, in addition to exam-' ining the building and scraping the rubbish, also examined the elevation plans and specifications for the superstructure of the building, put in by another contract. These plans he inquired for of the Supervising Architect and was referred by him to the designing room of that office, where he saw the plans; and these plans showed arches of 12-inch thickness. As a result of examining these plans and examining the building, and with the superintendent examining the work in question and scraping the rubbish to determine the depth, it was decided that an inch and a half in thickness would be an average depth; and on this basis claimant submitted his estimate for the work.
Said estimate, which was accepted by the Government, being 70 cents per square yard for removing old concrete and putting up to 8-J- inches below floor line in second story. When the claimant came, however, to do this work it was discovered that the plans, which showed 12-inch terra-cotta arches, were incorrect as to the arches' in four corners of the second floor, which arches proved to be only 9 inches thick. This fact necessitated and called for the removal of 3 inches more of old concrete and the putting up of 3 inches more in the four comers of the room to bring the level up to 3-J- inches below the floor line in the second story than would have been the case had the thickness of these arches, as shown by the plans furnished to claimant by defendant, been 12 inches instead of 9 inches thick in the corners. The additional work necessary to remove the old concrete and put up to 3^-inches below the floor line in the second story the new concrete, claimant was required to do, and did do, and had never been paid for the same.
The area of this additional removing of rubbish and depth of concrete not estimated for in claimant’s bid, and due to the difference in thickness of the arches, was 410 square yards of 3-inch additional thickness, or 820 square yards of 1-|- inch thickness, which at 70 cents per square yard, would amount to $574.
XII. The claimant completed and left in perfect condition the doors of the basement and first story of the building, and so reported to the Department. Some months after the completion of this work, and after the Government had taken possession of this part of the building and used the same for about three months, but before the completion of claimant’s contract, claimant was ordered, verbally, by the superintendent of construction to ease all doors, see that all hardware was perfectly placed, and locks in perfect condition, etc., on same, in first story and basement; and claimant did, rather than delay the completion and acceptance of his work, com-jfly with this order, at a cost and expense to him of $104. During the use of the basement and first story by the Government after the claimant had left these doors working perfectly, the basement was frequently flooded, by reason of defective drainage. Because of this the doors became swollen and the finished work was damaged. The finished work was subjected to rough usage; the locks on the east door leading to the mailing platform on the C street side of the building were badly broken; the check on the east door of the Pennsylvania avenue entrance to the building was broken, and it was because of the rough usage of the swollen doors, above referred to, by causes over which the claimant had no control, that this work required of and done by him at a cost of $104 was made necessary.
XIII. The eight round columns in the first story of the building were plastered in strict accordance with the contract, and neither the work nor the material was defective or unsatisfactory; and the claimant did not fail to complete this work of plastering, or any part thereof, in accordance with his agreement, nor did he fail to prosecute the work with such diligence as to insure its completion within the contract time; but because of the formula used for this work the plastering cracked, and the Department October 12, 1898, directed claimant to remove the unsatisfactory base and finish of the eight rounded columns on the first floor of the building and to replace the same with the same formula. The formula the claimant used was in strict accordance with the contract.
October 17, 1898, claimant protested against this direction given him, and October 18, 1898, was notified by defendant, through the superintendent of construction, that unless he commenced active operations at the site on or before the 19th instant (the next day) to replace the above work that this office (the Supervising Architect’s) will take steps to have the work performed and charge the cost thereof to claimant’s contract.
October 20,1898, claimant-replied that he did not consider that he should be called upon to do this work the third time.
October 22, 1898, claimant again protested against this decision of defendant as a violation of the terms of the contract, and stated he reserved the right to submit the matter to a higher authority at the proper time.
Nevertheless, defendant did have this work done over according to the original formula, commencing the work October 26, 1898. Defendant charged to claimant’s contract for this replastering the sum of $523, and the columns are now as when the Government insisted on claimant doing them over, and the same sized cracks exist that existed then in the columns as claimant had plastered them.
XIV. Claimant’s contract with defendant called for construction and finishing of elevator pits at the mailing platform, for which full-sized detail drawings were shoMm and which were fully covered by the specifications; but there were no drawings covering the concrete, granite, or brickwork for the elevator pits at the Eleventh street side of the building.
Claimant was required, under protest, to do all the concrete, granite, or brickwork for said pits, though there were no drawings or details furnished him.
The cost to claimant of doing this work was $513.30.
XV. 'Claimant’s contract with-defendant called for Hycle-brand windows, which are patented and reversible windows designed with the view of admitting of cleaning both on the inside and outside and at the same time avoiding the danger of standing on the outside to do this cleaning. .After these windows were put in place bjr claimant in every respect in accordance with the contract, they did not work satisfactorily, being patent windows which, constructed under the patent, never would be a success and could not be made to work properly. To try and remedy these defects, inherent from the nature of the patented article and not due to any defective or unsatisfactory workmanship on the part of claimant, defendant had certain work done upon these windows, and charged to the account of claimant’s contract for said work $500, which amount claimant has never been repaid.
On the foregoing findings of fact the court decided as a conclusion of law that the claimant was entitled to recover a judgment against the defendants for $2,045.36 on findings x, xi, xii, xiii, and xv, and on all other findings the claimant was not entitled to recover.
Messrs. Herbert and Micou for the claimant.
Mr. George M. Anderson (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Wrigi-it, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The question arising for decision on findings iv to ix, inclusive, is whether claimant can recover, under the clause of the contract quoted in the first finding, for the alleged damages for the delays caused by the defendants, as found and recited in the findings of the court.
The legal effect of the part of the contract referred to is, that the entire work covered by the contract was to be completed within eight months from the date of the approval of the bond, and that any particular portion of the work should be completed within such reasonable time as might thereafter be definitely specified in written notice to the contractor, and should there be a failure to so complete the work in the time required the contractor should forfeit $200 per day as liquidated damages thereafter until the completion of the same, provided that if through any fault of the defendants the contractor should be delayed in the execution of the work included in the contract he should be allowed one day additional to the time stated for such completion for each and every day of such delay so caused by the defendants, and that no claim should be made or allowed for damages which might arise out of any delay caused by the defendants.
The provisions of the contract just recited are as valid and binding as any other part of it, and having been voluntarily entered into the contractor has agreed that no claim shall be made or allowed arising out of the delay caused bjr the defendants mentioned in the findings. Extra time to the contractor was made the equivalent for delay caused by the defendants; and the claimant has not shown that such extra time was refused by the defendants.
In respect to the right to recover damages for delays the contract is purely unilateral and is confined to such damages as might be caused by the contractor alone, and for the delays caused by the defendants there can be no recovery.
The defendants insist there can be no recovery in the case for the reason, as argued, that the deceased contractor assigned the contract to Ellis, who managed the work and let the subcontracts. We have not found this to be the fact, and believe the defendants treated and dealt with Ellis as the contractor's agent during the time of the performance of the work under the contract.
For the work in the elevator pits described in the fourteenth finding there can be no extras allowed, for the reason the work was covered by the specifications and so included in the contract, but for the items embraced in findings x to xiii, inclusive, and finding xv, we are of the opinion the claimant should recover a judgment for two thousand forty-five dollars and thirty-six cents ($2,015.36), and it will be entered accordingly.