delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, which is of the same general nature as the foregoing cases, the petitioner, who was the assignee of one of the ■contractors, filed his original -petition in the Court of Claims December 15/1880. The case, after being heard, was submitted to that court on the 26th of May, 1882, and was by it •dismissed on the 29th of May, 1882. On the 6th of April; 1896, the judgment, was vacated and a new trial granted by virtue of the act of February 13, 1895. 31 C. Cl. 399.

The difference between the contract price and the board rate price was-claimed, and Dickson, as assignee, was allowed to recover $1386.30 for such difference, belonging to him by virtue of thé\ assignment, and which sum the court held to have “been dub and -payable June 2, 1873, within the meaning and intent of the act of February 13, 1895, and the act of June 16, 1880.” - . .

*342 For the same reasons as given in the foregoing oases', this judgment of the Court of Claims must also be

JSeversed, and the ccmse remanded with the same directions as in the other eases. . . ,