Case: THE UNITED STATES v. ISAAC T. COOK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM S. EAMES, DECEASED, AND THOMAS C. YOUNG
Abbreviation: United States v. Cook
Decision Date: 1921-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 57 Ct. Cl. 595
Volume: 57
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE UNITED STATES v. ISAAC T. COOK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM S. EAMES, DECEASED, AND THOMAS C. YOUNG.
Judges: 
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
THE UNITED STATES v. ISAAC T. COOK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM S. EAMES, DECEASED, AND THOMAS C. YOUNG.
[55 C. Cls. 215; 257 U. S. 523.]
Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
Claimants contracted with the Government to plan and supervise the construction of a public building for a fee, to be paid on monthly estimates and final completion, of 5 per cent of the actual cost of the work executed from their drawings and specifications and under their supervision, as shown by the books of the Supervising Architect by the net amount of construction contracts awarded and proposals accepted for additions or deductions. The building was delayed by an earthquake and fire and Congress made an additional appropriation to be paid the building contractor upon its completion, to recoup him for actually resulting losses due to increased prices of labor and materials; denying him any profit under his contract; and this extra payment was shown on the books of the Supervising Architect — but no appropriation was made for the claimants, although they had suffered likewise and had applied to Congress unsuccessfully.
Held: (1) The allowance to the building contractor was not a gratuity but an alteration of his contract based on a moral consideration.
(2) Claimants were entitled to their percentage on the additional amount so paid, since their equity was equally as strong and the words of their contract permitted.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Taet
rendered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 27, 1922.