E. W. Bliss Co. v. United States

275 U.S. 509
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 21, 1927
Docket89
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 275 U.S. 509 (E. W. Bliss Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
E. W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 509 (1927).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The judgment and order entered herein on November 29, 1027, is hereby revoked, and the following is now substituted in its stead:-

This Court is of opinion that the Secretary of the Navy had authority to make further contracts to pay the peti *510 tioner the increased cost resulting from the'wage increases put into effect, at the Secretary’s instance, in. the course of the petitioner’s performance of the original contracts, and that the findings off the Gourt of Claims show that such further contracts .were made and were based upon an adequate consideration, consisting 6£ both' advantage to the Government and detriment to the petitioner. The findings on other points are not such as to enable this Court finally to dispose of the case. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed and the cause is remanded to that Court with directions (1) to make further findings (a) as to whether the instruments of release express the actual intention of the parties in respect of a settlement or release of the petitioner’s claim for increased cost resulting from putting into effect the increased wages, or whether through mutual mistake, duress, or other sufficient ground for reformation the instruments of release were so drawn and signed that they failed to express the actual intention of the parties in that respect, and (b) as to what amount of increased cost to the petitioner resulted from the wage increases as- respects work done under the original contracts after the wage increases took effect; (2) to make these findings from the evidence already taken.and any additional evidence which the Court of Claims may deem it proper to receive; (3) to allow any amendments of the pleadings which may be needed to present the question whether the instruments of release should be reformed to express the actual intention of the parties in the particular herein named; and (4) to render such judgment in 'the cause as may be appropriate in view of the amended pleadings and the supplemented findings.

Messrs. Bynum E. Hinton, George A..King, Wm. B. King and George B. Shields for petitioner. Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Galloway and *511 Messrs. Perry-W. Howard and Louis F. Mehlinger for the United States.

*510 The mandate herein shall issue forthwith.

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

Related

Marlin-Rockwell Corp. v. United States
80 Ct. Cl. 394 (Court of Claims, 1935)
American Bridge Co. v. United States
72 Ct. Cl. 344 (Court of Claims, 1931)
James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States
73 Ct. Cl. 49 (Court of Claims, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 U.S. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-w-bliss-co-v-united-states-scotus-1927.