District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation v. John H. Bopst, Jr., and Maryland Casualty Company, a Corporation

D.C. Circuit

District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation v. John H. Bopst, Jr., and Maryland Casualty Company, a Corporation

183 F.2d 428, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 416, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2957

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1950

Docket10257

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 F.2d 428 (District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation v. John H. Bopst, Jr., and Maryland Casualty Company, a Corporation) 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

District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation v. John H. Bopst, Jr., and Maryland Casualty Company, a Corporation, 183 F.2d 428, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 416, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2957 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District of Columbia has appealed from an order of the court below dismissing its counter-claim against Bopst and his surety for the excess over the Bopst contract price of the cost of having the Worthington Pump and Machinery Corporation install sewage pumps after those which appellee Bopst installed had failed to meet the required specifications and had been removed pursuant to the terms of the contract.

Judge Morris, speaking for the District Court, held in his memorandum opinion, 1 that the appellant had previously made an election of one of the several alternate courses open to it under the terms of the contract pursuant to which a final settlement had been made, and that, therefore, it was now barred from repudiating that settlement in order to secure further advantages by a different interpretation of the contract. We hold that he was entirely correct and accordingly adopt that opinion as the decision of this court.

Affirmed.

1

. District of Columbia v. Bopst et al., D.C., 90 F.Supp. 286.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District of Columbia has appealed from an order of the court below dismissing its counter-claim against Bopst and his surety for the excess over the Bopst contract price of the cost of having the Worthington Pump and Machinery Corporation install sewage pumps after those which appellee Bopst installed had failed to meet the required specifications and had been removed pursuant to the terms of the contract.

Judge Morris, speaking for the District Court, held in his memorandum opinion, 1 that the appellant had previously made an election of one of the several alternate courses open to it under the terms of the contract pursuant to which a final settlement had been made, and that, therefore, it was now barred from repudiating that settlement in order to secure further advantages by a different interpretation of the contract. We hold that he was entirely correct and accordingly adopt that opinion as the decision of this court.

Affirmed.

1

. District of Columbia v. Bopst et al., D.C., 90 F.Supp. 286.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 F.2d 428, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 416, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/district-of-columbia-a-municipal-corporation-v-john-h-bopst-jr-and-cadc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack