Case: UNITED STATES v. L. P. & J. A. SMITH
Abbreviation: United States v. L. P. & J. A. Smith
Decision Date: 1918-04-11
Docket Number: 
Citation: 56 Ct. Cl. 474
Volume: 56
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES v. L. P. & J. A. SMITH.
Judges: 
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. L. P. & J. A. SMITH.
[54 C. Cls., 119 ; 256 U. S., 11.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the contractors in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
In the performance of a contract with the United States for the excavation of a channel to specified depths, under attached specifications describing the 'materials to be removed as clay, sand, gravel, and boulders in unknown proportions, deposits consisting largely of limestone were encountered, the removal of which entailed an expense per cubic yard much exceeding the price fixed by the contract for the materials therein specified. The engineer officer in charge of the work arbitrarily classified these deposits with the materials described by the specifications, ignored the protest of the con tractors and tlieir request that a new price be fixed therefor, and required them to proceed, under threats that, otherwise, they would be declared in default and the work taken from them and completed and the cost recouped from the retained percentages of their pay already earned and through legal proceedings against themselves and their sureties. Held, that clauses in the contract making decisions of the officer as to quantity and quality of work final, requiring the contractors to observe his instructions, and denying any claim for modification of the work not agreed to, or expressly required, in writing, were inapplicable, and that the contractors were entitled to recover from the United States the cost of excavating the material not covered by the contract.
Contractors with the United States held entitled to recover the amount of a loss due to delays of the engineer in locating the places where they should work.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 11, 1918.