Court of Claims, 1923

Union Twist Drill Co. v. United States

Union Twist Drill Co. v. United States
Court of Claims · Decided November 12, 1923
59 Ct. Cl. 909; 1923 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 227; 1923 WL 2126

Counsel

Mr. George T. Farrell for the plaintiff. Messrs. T. T. Ansberry, Walter E. Barton, and Frank P. Ryam, were on the brief., Mr. Howard J. Bloomer, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the defendant.

Union Twist Drill Co. v. United States

Opinion of the Court

*914MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT

The parties, the plaintiff by its attorney of record and the defendant by Robert H. Lovett, Assistant Attorney General, have stipulated the facts and the findings are in accordance with the stipulation. The defendant concedes a right of recovery in the plaintiff but questions its right to recover as for a breach of the contract on the ground, as stated in argument, that the contract was prosy signed.”

The contracting officer was Thomas H. Slavin, colonel, Quartermaster Corps, and the contract bears his name at the end thereof with his official designation, followed by the words, “ John R. Holt, Captain, Q. M. R. C.”

Finding III, following the stipulation, states that “ Said contract was executed and delivered on behalf of the United States by Thomas H. Slavin, colonel, Quartermaster Corps, whose name was signed to said contract by John R. ITolt, pursuant to his direction.”

Under the facts stated the affixing of the signature of the contracting officer by another, duly authorized, creates no infirmity in the execution of the contract. Execution embraces more than mere signing. The conclusion from the facts stated must be that the contract was legally executed.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $5,659.23.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.