Barnard v. District of Columbia

127 U.S. 409, 8 S. Ct. 1202, 32 L. Ed. 207, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2005

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: May 14, 1888
• Docket: 272
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.