Case: ELIAS E. BARNES v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Abbreviation: Barnes v. District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1905-02-27
Docket Number: 
Citation: 40 Ct. Cl. 519
Volume: 40
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: ELIAS E. BARNES v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Judges: 
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
ELIAS E. BARNES v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
[37 C. Cls. R., 342; 197 U. S. R., 146.]
On the defendants'’ Appeal.
This case has been twice tried before. The different result now reached by the court rests on facts developed for the first time at the last hearing. On the former trials the case proceeded on the theory that all of the work sued for was done under contracts made before the establishing of “ board rates.” It now appears that some of the work was done after the completion of the contract work, and subsequent to the establishing of board rates.
The court below decides':
1. Where work for the defendant was done under a written contract the Commissioners of the District of Columbia were without authority to increase the compensation by allowing board rates; but where the contract work had been completed by a contractor before new and additional work was begun, and the new work was begun after board rates had been established, he should recover at those rates.
2. The power of the District Commissioners to enter into contracts was restricted by the Act 20th Jtone, 1871/ (18 Stat L., 116), to the limitations previously imposed by law on the board of public works; but the Act 16th June, 1S80 (21 id., 284), authorized for equitable adjustment in this court, claims. arising out of the contracts and extension of contracts, and orders for work by the Commissioners. The history of the legislation and of the previous decisions of the court stated.
3. Where a contract for the excavation of sand and gravel was fully performed and subsequently the contractor continued the excavation under a verbal agreement with the Commissioners, he was entitled to be compensated for excavating a different material, viz, stiff clay, at the rate then established and paid to other contractors for like work.

Opinion:
The decision of the cdurt below is affirmed on the same grounds.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 27,1905.