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

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 8, 1950·No. 10257·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

183 F.2d 428 (District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation v. John H. Bopst, Jr., and Maryland Casualty Company, a Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related