Harvey v. United States
Harvey v. United States
Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the court below is affirmed for the full amount of the award made to the claimants, and an additional amount of $23,842.82 is allowed for the labor done and material furnished by the claimants in constructing coffer-dams, being an additional allowance on account of item 1 in their petition. The disallowance by the court of item 2 of the petition, claiming for loss and damage from the reduction by the United States of piers and abutments, is reversed, and $4,574.80 is allowed therefor.
The Supreme Court held that the claimants could not be deprived of reasonable compensation for their work because they did not produce evidence of the character' referred to, when it •did not appear that such evidence existed, if the evidence they produced was the best evidence accessible to them, and it en■abled the court to arrive at a proper conclusion.
On evidence thus rejected by the Court of Claims, the Supreme Court awarded to the claimants, for the above-named work, $40,093.77.'
The Court of Claims haviug awmrded nothing to the claimants
Under section 1091 of the Revised Statutes, and the ruling in Tilson v. United States (100 U. S. R., 43), interest cannot be allowed on the recovery, and there is nothing in the special act of August 14, 1876 (ch. 279, 19 Stat., 490), which authorizes the allowance of interest.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- JAMES W. HARVEY AND JAMES LIVISEY v. THE UNITED STATES THE UNITED STATES v. JAMES W. HARVEY AND JAMES LIVISEY
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Both parties appeal. In 1869 tlie defendants invited proposals for constructing- the piers and alnrtments of a bridge from Rock Island to Davenport. The claimants’ bid was accepted, and a written contract prepared and signed. The claimants made preparations to begin work, and began it, but were stopped by the defendants, who changed the plans of the piers by narrowing them. The claimants then notified the defendants to build coffer-dams for the piers and make excavations for the masonry beds, or that such work would be done by claimants, and defendants held for the cost and expense. The defendants declining to do this, the claimants did it at their expense, so long as they continued in the work. In the autumn of 1870 the defendants took possession of the work and finished it. The claimants brought suit in the Court of Claims at common law, maintaining that the written contract did not conform to the proposal and bid; that the latter expressed the true terms of the contract; and claiming to recover for the cost of the coffer-dams, pumping the same, and excavating and preparing beds for the masonry; and also demanding their loss in profits by reason of narrowing the piei's, which di,d not decrease the expensive exterior masonry, but took effect only on the cheap interior masonry, in which were the principal profits of the work. The court gave judgment for the claimants on other items, but held that the claimants were bound by the written contract, and gave judgment for the defendants on the above items. (8 C. Cls. R., 501.) Congress then conferred equity jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to reform the contract and render such judgment as justice and right might require-.. The court decided that the written contract expressed the will of the parties, and declined to take jurisdiction of the question of the narrowing of the piers. (13 C. Cls. R., 322.) The Supreme Court reversed the rulings on each point. (105 U. S. R., 671.) The case ia now heard for the execution of the mandate.