Case: JOHN B. SUTTON, TRUSTEE OF THE HILLSBORO DREDGING COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Sutton v. United States
Decision Date: 1921-06-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 56 Ct. Cl. 477
Volume: 56
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: JOHN B. SUTTON, TRUSTEE OF THE HILLSBORO DREDGING COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 477–477

Head Matter:
JOHN B. SUTTON, TRUSTEE OF THE HILLSBORO DREDGING COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[55 C. Cls., 193 ; 256 U. S., -.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was modified and affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
Acts appropriating specific amounts for tlie improvement of a navigable channel and for “ completing ” the improvement, with provision for using the fund in the prosecution of the worlt if insufficient to complete it (river and harbor act, c. 253, sec. 8, 37 Stat. 233) do not authorize the Secretary of War to contract to expend more than the amounts appropriated; and his contract to do so would not bind the Government. (Eev. Stats., sec. 3733; act of June 30, 1906, c. 3914, see. 9, 34 ■ Stat.'764.)
An appropriation for the preservation and maintenance of existing river and harbor works and for the prosecution of work previously authorized, is not applicable to pay for work theretofore done under and in excess of a prior appropriation, and when so misapplied the amount paid may be deducted from a balance owing the contractor under another contract.
A contract for dredging and excavating at unit rates specified the materials to be removed at estimated amounts which, if correctly estimated, would, have been covered by the appropriation, and provided that Government inspectors should keep a record of the work done, which was to be within the limits of the funds available. Relying upon erroneous estimates of an inspector, the contractor did more work than the appropriation would pay for before the error was discovered and the operations stayed. Held, that, there being no authority to contract in excess of the appropriation, no contract of the Government to pay the fair value of the excess work could be implied, either because the contractor was thus misled into doing it or from the subsequent use of the excavation by the Government.
If, through mistake of the Government’s representatives, more work is done, and work is continued for a longer period than was contracted for or authorized, the cost of Government superintendence incident to the mistake should not be taken from the appropriation at the expense of the contractor.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice BkaNdeis
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court June 1, 1921.