Ferris v. United States

Court of Claims

Ferris v. United States

77 Ct. Cl. 294, 1933 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 332, 1933 WL 1808

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 13, 1933

DocketNo. M-365

StatusPublished

This text of 77 Ct. Cl. 294 (Ferris v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferris v. United States, 77 Ct. Cl. 294, 1933 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 332, 1933 WL 1808 (cc 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff received an order for chairs from Saint Eliza-beths Hospital, Department of the Interior. The proof is that the chairs delivered in response to the order were in all respects the chairs specified therein. Defendant’s inspection after delivery showed that plaintiff had fully complied with the contract. Of course, nothing else could be expected or required of the contractor except compliance, and it is not otherwise contended. Defendant’s refusal to pay for the chairs is obviously for no other reason than that the hospital .authorities decided they could not use the chairs they had purchased. There is no provision in the contract [297]*297giving the purchaser the right to refuse payment on that ground.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover the purchase price, $585, and judgment must be given accordingly. It is so ordered.

Williams, Judge; Littletok, Judge/ and Gbeen, Judge; concur. Booth, GMef Justice, took no part in the decision of this case on account of illness.

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

Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff received an order for chairs from Saint Eliza-beths Hospital, Department of the Interior. The proof is that the chairs delivered in response to the order were in all respects the chairs specified therein. Defendant’s inspection after delivery showed that plaintiff had fully complied with the contract. Of course, nothing else could be expected or required of the contractor except compliance, and it is not otherwise contended. Defendant’s refusal to pay for the chairs is obviously for no other reason than that the hospital .authorities decided they could not use the chairs they had purchased. There is no provision in the contract [297]*297giving the purchaser the right to refuse payment on that ground.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover the purchase price, $585, and judgment must be given accordingly. It is so ordered.

Williams, Judge; Littletok, Judge/ and Gbeen, Judge; concur. Booth, GMef Justice, took no part in the decision of this case on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 Ct. Cl. 294, 1933 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 332, 1933 WL 1808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferris-v-united-states-cc-1933.