Case: THE UNITED STATES v. FRANK A. BEHAN
Abbreviation: United States v. Behan
Decision Date: 1884-02-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 19 Ct. Cl. 710
Volume: 19
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE UNITED STATES v. FRANK A. BEHAN.
Judges: 
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
THE UNITED STATES v. FRANK A. BEHAN.
(18 C. Cls. R., 687; 110 U. S. R., 339.)
On the defendants’ Appeal.
A contractor failed to perform his work satisfactorily under a written contract with the defendants, and his contract was annulled. The claimant, a surety on his bond, was permitted to assume the same and go on with the work in place of the contractor. After expending much money and doing a large part of the work, the defendants abandoned the undertaking because of the failure of the plan to accomplish the intended object, and without fault of the claimant. By-defendants’ order he stopped work. The claimant sues for losses and expenditures, and for prospective profits. The court finds his actual losses, but is unable from the evidence to determine whether there would have been profits or losses had he completed the contract and been paid the full contract x>rice.
The court below decides—
(1.) Whatever rule may be adopted in calculating the damages to a contractor when, without his fault, the other party, during its progress, puts an end to the contract before completion, the object is to indemnify him for his losses sustained and his gains prevented by the action of the party in fault, viewing these elements with relation to each other. *
(2.) The profits and losses must be determined according to the circumstances of the case and the subject-matter of the contract. The reasonable expenditures already incurred, the unavoidable losses incident to stoppage, the progress attained, the unfinished part, and the probable cost of its completion, the whole contract price, and the estimated pecuniary result, favorable or unfavorable t.o him, had he been permitted or required to go on and complete his contract, may be taken into consideration.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion February 4,1884, adopting the language used by the court below.