MIDLAND LAND & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1926-03-01
No. 105
270 U.S. 251 Supreme Court of the United States (1926) Caution
Also reported at: 70 L. Ed. 570 · 46 S. Ct. 218 · SCDB 1925-151 · 1926 U.S. LEXIS 857
Cited by 16 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Midland Land & Improvement Company contracted with the United States to dredge Newark Bay and Passaic River at a fixed rate per cubic yard, but abandoned the work in 1912, resulting in an anticipatory breach that entitled the Government to complete the project through another contractor at a higher cost. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the United States, holding that the company was liable for the additional expenses and that the reserved funds could be applied to offset the Government's losses from the contractor's repudiation.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandéis

Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the Court.

On August 12,1907, the Midland Land & Improvement Company agreed with the United States to dredge and dispose of 4,177,110 cubic yards of material in Newark Bay and Passaic River at 16% cents per yard, payable as the work progressed. The contract provided that the work should be prosecuted with “ faithfulness and energy ” and that the rate of workwill be at least 50,000 cubic yards per month.” On September 24, 1912, the company stopped work, leaving much unperformed. In 1913, the Government declared the contract “ annulled,” and had. the uncompleted part of the work done by another contractor, who was paid 26 7/10 cents per yard. See United States v. O’Brien, 220 U. S. 321, 328. The additional cost to the Government was $141,127.31. The Midland contract-provided that the Government would reserve from each payment ten per cent, until half the work was completed, and that the amount reserved might be applied toward reimbursing it for any additional cost resulting from the contractor’s default. The sum of $33,998.15,-which had been reserved, was so applied. .In. 1917, the company brought this suit in the Court of Claims to recover the amount. Upon elaborate findings of fact that court entered judgment for the United States.. 58 Ct. Cls. 671. The case-is here on appeal, taken May 15, 1924, under § 242 of the Judicial Code. .

It is contended that at the time when the Government annulled the contract the amount of work done had exceeded the aggregate of the monthly requirements, and, hence, that the company was not in default. This question we have no occasion to consider. The correspondence between the parties and other facts found warranted the conclusion that the company had abandoned the work and refused to complete the contract. There was thus an anticipatory breach by the company which entitled the Government to relet the uncompleted part of the work. Compare Smoot’s Case 15 Wall. 36, 48; Dingley v. Oler, 117 U. S. 490, 503. It is also contended that the judgment is erroneous, because it was incumbent upon the Government to show that the uncompleted work done under the later contract did not materially depart from that described in the repudiated contract and that this was not shown. See United States v. Axman, 234 U. S. 36. The lower court concluded that the uncompleted part of the work was relet on the same specifications. Enough appears to show that the loss to the Government resulting from the plaintiff’s repudiation of the contract far exceeded the amount reserved.

Affirmed. -

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Foster Constr. C. A. & Williams Bros. Co. v. The United States, 435 F.2d 873 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
    …and the plaintiff’s burden of proof is not satisfied merely by proof of a variation between the subsurface conditions as stated in the contract and as encountered. Midland Land & Improvement Co. v. United States, 58 Ct.Cl. 671, 683-684 (1923), aff’d 270 U.S. 251, 46 S.Ct. 218, 70 L.Ed. 570 (1926); C. W. Blakeslee & Sons v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 226, 250-251 (1939), cert. denied, 309 U.S. 659, 60 S.Ct. 512, 84 L.Ed. 1007 (1940). The claim based upon the modern changed conditions clause is very much diffe…
  • Archie & Allan Spiers, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.2d 757 (Ct. Cl. 1961)
    …States, 84 Ct.Cl. 84, cert. denied 302 U.S. 696, 58 S.Ct. 14, 82 L.Ed. 538; General Contracting Corp. v. United States, 88 Ct.Cl. 214. In other words, as the court stated in Midland Land & Improvement Co. v. United States, 58 Ct.Cl. 671, 683, aff’d 270 U.S. 251, 46 S.Ct. 218, 70 L.Ed. 570: “The burden of proving misrepresentation rests upon the party making the allegation. It is not to be presumed, and one may not, either under the Christie or Hollerbach Case, simply show a different condition in some res…
  • Steffen v. United States, 213 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1954)
    …reach of the contract the difference between the reasonable cost of having such contract completed according to its terms and the amount remaining unpaid to the contractor under the original contract. Midland Land & Improvement Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 251, 46 S.Ct. 218, 70 L.Ed. 570; Carl Const. Co. v. Miller, 234 Ky. 794, 799, 29 S.W. 2d 545; American Surety Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 136 F. 2d 437, 439. If the work called for by the second contract is merely the uncompleted work under the first…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw