Case: J. E. SIMPSON CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: J. E. Simpson Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1898-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 34 Ct. Cl. 539
Volume: 34
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: J. E. SIMPSON CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 3,1899.
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
J. E. SIMPSON CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
[31 C. Cls. R., 217; 172 U. S. R., 372.]
Claimants enter into a contract to build a dry dock at tke Brooklyn Navy-Yard. In executing tke contract tkey came upon quicksands, to wkick tke contract contains no reference, and wkick increase tke time required to perform tke work; tkey ask for an extension, wkick is granted, and a settlement witk an allowance for extra work is made. Tkree years later tke claim for extra labor and material is brougkt and refused and a suit begun. Tke court below decides:
1. A provision in a contract tkat tke contractors will build dry docks in certain navy-yards “upon available sites to be provided by the Government” can not be so construed as to bind tke Government to furnish information witk regard to tke subsoil or to warrant tke site as being wkat it appears.
2. An “available site" for a dry dock in a navy-yard is one wkick is free from buildings, easy of access from tke shops, convenient for workmen, having practicable entrance from the water, and wkick interferes as little as practicable witk tke other uses of tke yard. The term does not import one wkick has a good subsoil free from quicksand and defects wkick may cause an extraordinary expense to tke builders.
3. Where a contract throws the risk of construction upon tke builder and it was so understood by tke defendants, and there was no mutual mistake of fact, there is nothing in tke contract to reform.
4. Where contracts and specifications are drawn by the contractors, doubtful expressions will be construed more strongly against them.
5. Where a contract is drawn and tendered by an expert in a difficult and unusual class of work, one of tke unwritten considerations is tke dependence of tke employer upon tke skill of tke specialist who undertakes tke work. Tke danger of tke undertaking should be contemplated by tke latter when he enters into the- contract.

Opinion:
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the ground that the contract contained no warranty on the part of the United States as to the character of the soil in which the dry dock was to be constructed.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 3,1899.