Case: JOHN GEORGE DAY AND ISAIAH NEWTON DAY, partners, under the firm name of J. G. & I. N. DAY, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Day v. United States
Decision Date: 1917-11-26
Docket Number: The decision of the court below is affirmed
Citation: 53 Ct. Cl. 619
Volume: 53
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: JOHN GEORGE DAY AND ISAIAH NEWTON DAY, partners, under the firm name of J. G. & I. N. DAY, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
JOHN GEORGE DAY AND ISAIAH NEWTON DAY, partners, under the firm name of J. G. & I. N. DAY, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[48 C. Cls., 128; 245 U. S., 159.]
The contract for the completion of work on the canal and locks of the Columbia River contains most stringent provisions making contractors “ responsible, without expense to the Government, for the preservation and, good condition of all the work now in place,” etc. Before their work is done a freshet in the river, unprecedented in height, makes it necessary to protect the work by constructing a new and higher bulkhead a distance of 2,000 yards at the cost of $37,485.
The court below decides:
Where a contract binds the contractors, absolutely, to protect the work “ without expense to the Government ” they must do so, though the necessity be caused by an unprecedented rise in the Columbia River at the Cascades above the 142-foot mark, and the extent and cost of the protective work could not have been reasonably anticipated.
The necessity of certain protective work may have been caused by the act of God, the unprecedented rise of a river, but if it did not render performance impossible it did not relieve the contractors from their obligation to perform.
The language of a contract can not be deemed ambiguous where its intent harmonizes with other provisions of the contract and disagrees with none.
The fact that certain unforseen protective work was done “ by authority of the engineer in charge,” and the additional facts that in his annual report of the following year he recommended that the project be changed so as to bring such protective bulkhead 6 feet higher, which recommendation was approved by the Chief of Engineers and the bulkhead was brought up to that height, do not constitute a construction of the contract by the officer in charge which would relieve the contractors from the obligation requiring “ the entire completion of the loch,” and cast upon them “ every expense of whatever nature that may arise -during the progress of the work.”
The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 26, 1917.