SWEENEY
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A contractor sought payment for constructing a wall under a government contract that required certification by a designated army officer before payment could be made. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment against the contractor, holding that the officer's refusal to certify the work was proper because the contractor's material and workmanship failed to meet the contract specifications, and the officer exercised honest judgment without fraud or gross mistake in making his inspection.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This judgment is affirmed on the authority of Kihlberg v. United States, 91 U. S. 398. It was provided in the contract that payment for the wall was not to be made until some officer of the army, civil engineer, or other agent, to-be designated by the United States, had certified, after inspection, “ that it was in all respects as contracted for.” The officer of the army designated under this authority expressly refused to give the necessary certificate, on the ground that neither the material nor the workmanship were such as the contract required. The court below found that there was neither fraud, nor such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, nor any failure to exercise an honest judgment on the part of the officer in making his inspections. The appellant was notified of the defective character of the material, and that it would not be accepted, before he put it into the wall, and after he had completed his work the wall which he constructed was taken down by order of the quartermaster-general and a new one made of other material built in its place.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Little River Bank & Tr. Co. v. Johnson, 105 Fla. 212 (Fla. 1932)…ator to payment (County of Pickens v. Daniel, 102 U. S. 187, 26 L. Ed. 99). Neither was a demand for the levy of a tax requisite where the duty to levy it is imposed by statute (Cherokee County Comm’rs. v. Wilson, 109 U. S. 621, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 352, 27 L. Ed. 1053), or where the duty to levy the tax, or make provision for payment, is otherwise plain. Columbia County v. King, 13 Fla. 451; Fisher v. City of Charleston, 17 W. Va. 595. See also Rountree v. State ex rel. Georgia Bond & Mortgage Co., 102 Fla. 246,…
-
Howard v. The Pensacola & Atl. R.R. Co., 24 Fla. 560 (Fla. 1888)
-
United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1951)…icle 15 have been approved and enforced “in the absence of fraud or such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, or a failure to exercise an honest judgment . . . .” Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U. S. 398, 402; Sweeney v. United States, 109 U. S. 618, 620; Martinsburg & P. R. [*100] Co. v. March; 114 U. S. 549, 553; Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v. Price, 138 U. S. 185, 195. In Ripley v. United States, 223 U. S. 695, 704, gross mistake implying bad faith is equated to “fraud.” Despite the fact tha…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1878)