SOUTH BOSTON IRON COMPANY
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.
South Boston Iron Company sought to recover payment from the United States for work allegedly contracted through preliminary memoranda with the Navy Department, but the Supreme Court affirmed that no binding contract existed because the memoranda were only preliminary notes and not the formal written contract required by law to bind the federal government. The Court held that contracts with the Navy Department must be executed in the form prescribed by statute, and the government's abandonment of the matter shortly after the memoranda were created confirmed that no contract was ever formed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
In Clark v. The United States, 95 U. S. 539, it was decided that, to bind the United States, contracts by the Navy Department must be in writing, and signed by the contracting parties. Such, in the opinion of the court, was the effect of the act of June 2, 1862, 12 Stat. 411, ch. 93, now in force as §§ 3744-3747 and §§ 512-515 of the Revised Statutes. _ An effort has been made in this case to show a contract in writing, but we agree entirely with the Court of Claims that the papers relied on for that purpose are nothing more in law or in fact than the preliminary memoranda made by the parties for use in preparing a contract for execution in the form required by law. This was never done, and, therefore, the United States never became bound. Within a very few days after the memoranda were made the whole matter was abandoned by the Department, and the Iron Company has neither performed any of the work which was referred to, nor has it ever been called on to do so.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. R. P. Andrews & Co., 207 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1907)
-
United States v. N.Y. & Porto RICO S.S. Co., 239 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1915)
-
ST. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1903)…ot having been “reduced to writing, and signed by the contracting parties with their names at the end thereof,” could not have been sued upon if it had not been performed. Clark v. United States, 95 U. S. 539; South Boston Iron Co. v. United States, 118 U. S. 37. See Monroe v. United States, 184 U. S. 524. It is argued by the claimant on this ground that it is entitled to manlÍNh quantum valebat. On the facts stated it is evident that the claimant has no case. The invalidity of the contract is immaterial…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1877)