BARNARD
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
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.
Robert H. Ryan contracted with the District of Columbia's Board of Public Works in 1872 to perform grading and excavation work on New Jersey Avenue at specified prices per cubic yard, and after his death his estate claimed additional compensation for rock excavations at a higher rate established in the Board's journal. The Supreme Court affirmed that the contract prices applied to all excavation work regardless of soil composition, and that a Board journal entry could not create extra compensation since federal law required all District contracts to be in writing, signed by parties, and filed, while prohibiting any allowance of extra compensation under a contract.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court.
On the 23d day of July, 1872, Eobert H. Eyan, since deceased, entered into a contract with the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia to do certain work for the improvement of New Jersey Avenue, in the city of Washington, from B Street south to the Potomac Eiver. The different kinds of work required were stated, and the prices for each specified, among which were “ grading, 30 cents per cubic yard,” and “ excavations and refilling, 40 cents per cubic yard, to be measured in excavating only.” It is conceded that Eyan performed the work pursuant to the contract,’ and has been paid the amount agreed upon. The present claim is for extra work on the avenue “ in grading or excavating stone or rock,” for which it is contended there is no provision in the contract. The Board had entered in its journal before the 'contract was made the following: “ Chief Engineer was notified that the following price was established for rock excavation, viz.: in ditches for sewers, etc., $1.50 per cubic yard; cutting down streets and the like, $1.00 per cubic yard. Auditor and contract clerk notified; ” and Eyan contended that he was therefore entitled for all rock excavations to one dollar a yard instead of the price specified in the contract for grading and excavating, the difference being $4060.
To this contention there are two answers. In the first place, the “grading” and “excavation” specified in the contract are not limited to work done in sand or gravel or earth free from stone or rock. It might reasonably be expected that more, or less stone or rock would be found in the progress of the Avork, and the price was evidently fixed upon its supposed average character. In the second place, the act of Congress of February 21, 1871, “ to provide a government for the District of Columbia,” in force at the time,'required that all contracts' by the Board should be in Avriting, be signed by the parties making the same, and a copy thereof filed in the office of the secretary of the District; and it forbade the alio Avance of any extra compensation for Avork done under a contract. 16 Stat. 419, 423, c. 62, §§ 15, 37.
The entry in the journal of the Board was no part of the contract with the claimant, nor could it in any respect control the construction or limit the effect of such contract. The Board could not in that Avay either make a new contract or alter the one previously made, so as to bind the District. Barnes v. District of Columbia, 22 C. Cl. 366.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Dist. of Columbia v. Barnes, 197 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1905)…ld be in writing and signed by the parties making the same. And it was held that this statute requires contracts to be actually signed and that mere entries on the journals of the board would not satisfy the statute. Barnard v. District of Columbia, 127 U. S. 409, 411. But under the statute, June 16, 1880, now under consideration, the intention is manifest to permit the Court of Claims to adjudicate claims for all work done by the order and direction of the Commissioners, and accepted by them for the use, p…
-
Ranco, Inc. v. Gwynn, 128 F.2d 437 (6th Cir. 1942)…us protecting the stem from the direct heat of the electric coil. No invention resides in merely changing the form or size of a device, or in merely making it portable or movable; Hendy v. Golden State, etc., Iron Works, 127 U.S. 370, 8 S.Ct. 1275, 32 L.Ed. 207; Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U.S. 1, 5 S.Ct. 1042, 29 L.Ed. 76; Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Quick Action Ignition Co., 7 Cir., 93 F. 2d 207; Frigidaire Corp. v. General Necessities Corp., 6 Cir., 46 F. 2d 58; Ohio Galvanizing & Mfg. Co. v. Mercury Mf…
-
Magnavox Co. v. Hart & Reno, 73 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1934)…ases cited.]” See, also, Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Mellon, 104 U. S. 112, 118, 26 L. Ed. 639; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U. S. 554, 559, 6 S. Ct. 846, 29 L. Ed. 952; Hendy v. Miners’ Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370, 375, 376, 8 S. Ct. 1275, 32 L. Ed. 207; Howe Machine Co. v. National Needle Co., 134 U. S. 388, 394, 10 S. Ct. 570, 33 L. Ed. 963; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419, 423-425, 12 S. Ct. 76, 77, 35 L. Ed. 800; Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 576, 577, 15 S. Ct. 199, 39 L. Ed. 263; McCarty…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence