Carlyle F. Warner, T/a W. Frank Warner Company v. F. H. Martell Company, Inc.

D.C. Circuit

Carlyle F. Warner, T/a W. Frank Warner Company v. F. H. Martell Company, Inc.

239 F.2d 66, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 246, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4128

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 1956

Docket13320

StatusPublished

This text of 239 F.2d 66 (Carlyle F. Warner, T/a W. Frank Warner Company v. F. H. Martell Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlyle F. Warner, T/a W. Frank Warner Company v. F. H. Martell Company, Inc., 239 F.2d 66, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 246, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4128 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions for our decision are two: (1) whether appellant, subcontractor on a school building construction job, was legally responsible for the costs of certain temporary heating of the building for a longer period than anticipated because of delays which were due to no fault of appellant; and (2) whether appellee, the general contractor, was responsible to appellant for the amount of “extra” costs entailed by appellant for excavation work, the costs of which were enhanced by unexpected subsurface conditions. The trial court, after hearing evidence and considering the terms of the relevant documents, held for ap-pellee on both questions and entered judgment accordingly. We find no error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The questions for our decision are two: (1) whether appellant, subcontractor on a school building construction job, was legally responsible for the costs of certain temporary heating of the building for a longer period than anticipated because of delays which were due to no fault of appellant; and (2) whether appellee, the general contractor, was responsible to appellant for the amount of “extra” costs entailed by appellant for excavation work, the costs of which were enhanced by unexpected subsurface conditions. The trial court, after hearing evidence and considering the terms of the relevant documents, held for ap-pellee on both questions and entered judgment accordingly. We find no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 F.2d 66, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 246, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlyle-f-warner-ta-w-frank-warner-company-v-f-h-martell-company-cadc-1956.