Baton Rouge Contracting Co., Inc. v. West Hatchie Drainage District of Tippah County, Mississippi

Fifth Circuit

Baton Rouge Contracting Co., Inc. v. West Hatchie Drainage District of Tippah County, Mississippi

436 F.2d 976

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1971

Docket29249_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 976 (Baton Rouge Contracting Co., Inc. v. West Hatchie Drainage District of Tippah County, Mississippi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baton Rouge Contracting Co., Inc. v. West Hatchie Drainage District of Tippah County, Mississippi, 436 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this case the plaintiff-contractor sued to recover the value of certain alleged extra work performed pursuant to a contract for river channelization. In a detailed and well-reasoned opinion Judge Orma R. Smith denied the principal item of recovery by holding that the additional work was mere difficulty in performance which could have been foreseen before acceptance of the contract since defendants’ plans and specifications adequately revealed the type of soil conditions to be expected. The district court granted plaintiff’s claim for a sum over and above the price paid for the new spur inlets but disallowed recovery of interest on money admittedly owed plaintiff for the reason the defendant had made a tender without prejudice. Finally, the district court refused plaintiff’s claim for compensation for clearing work on the entire area to be cleared as shown on defendants’ maps. There is nothing we can add to the opinion of the district court. See 304 F.Supp. 580.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In this case the plaintiff-contractor sued to recover the value of certain alleged extra work performed pursuant to a contract for river channelization. In a detailed and well-reasoned opinion Judge Orma R. Smith denied the principal item of recovery by holding that the additional work was mere difficulty in performance which could have been foreseen before acceptance of the contract since defendants’ plans and specifications adequately revealed the type of soil conditions to be expected. The district court granted plaintiff’s claim for a sum over and above the price paid for the new spur inlets but disallowed recovery of interest on money admittedly owed plaintiff for the reason the defendant had made a tender without prejudice. Finally, the district court refused plaintiff’s claim for compensation for clearing work on the entire area to be cleared as shown on defendants’ maps. There is nothing we can add to the opinion of the district court. See 304 F.Supp. 580.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F.2d 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baton-rouge-contracting-co-inc-v-west-hatchie-drainage-district-of-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack