Hallman v. United States

Court of Claims

Hallman v. United States

68 F. Supp. 204, 107 Ct. Cl. 555

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 4, 1946

Docket47092

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 68 F. Supp. 204 (Hallman 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

Hallman v. United States, 68 F. Supp. 204, 107 Ct. Cl. 555 (cc 1946).

Pincite

Opinions

WHITAKER, Judge.

Plaintiffs had a contract with defendant for the construction of some buildings at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, outside of Chattanooga, Tennessee. After plaintiffs submitted their bid the governing authorities at the Post promulgated a traffic regulation requiring vehicular traffic to come to a stop in the vicinity of troops moving in the streets. Plaintiffs say this regulation increased their cost of performance, and for this they sue.

The Government demurs because it says this regulation was of general application and was issued in the performance of a governmental function, to wit, the regulation of traffic, and for such an act the Government is not liable.

This is a good defense. Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 45 S.Ct. 344, 69 L.Ed. 736; Deming v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 190; Jones v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 383; Wilson v. United States, 11 Ct.Cl. 513; Gothwaite v. United States, 102 Ct.Cl. 400; Standard Accident Ins. Co. et al. v. United States, 59 F.Supp. 407, 103 Ct.Cl. 607, cert. den., 326 U.S. 729, 66 S.Ct. 37.

Plaintiffs also say they are entitled to recover under article 4 of the contract relative to changed conditions. Article 4 relates to changed physical conditions at the site of the work; it has no reference to changed governmental, political or economic conditions. Plaintiffs could hardly recover because the commandant of the post was changed from a mild-tempered old gentleman to an old “Blood and Guts”; or that the Democratic Administration was succeeded by a Republican Administration; or that the interest rate had changed; or because of the amalgamation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Federation of Labor. These would be changed conditions, indeed, and might affect the cost of performance of the contract, but neither they nor a change in traffic regulations were in the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the so-called agreement embodied in article 4.

The defendant’s demurrer is sustained and plaintiffs’ petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

WHALEY, Chief Justice, concurs.

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

WHITAKER, Judge.

Plaintiffs had a contract with defendant for the construction of some buildings at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, outside of Chattanooga, Tennessee. After plaintiffs submitted their bid the governing authorities at the Post promulgated a traffic regulation requiring vehicular traffic to come to a stop in the vicinity of troops moving in the streets. Plaintiffs say this regulation increased their cost of performance, and for this they sue.

The Government demurs because it says this regulation was of general application and was issued in the performance of a governmental function, to wit, the regulation of traffic, and for such an act the Government is not liable.

This is a good defense. Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 45 S.Ct. 344, 69 L.Ed. 736; Deming v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 190; Jones v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 383; Wilson v. United States, 11 Ct.Cl. 513; Gothwaite v. United States, 102 Ct.Cl. 400; Standard Accident Ins. Co. et al. v. United States, 59 F.Supp. 407, 103 Ct.Cl. 607, cert. den., 326 U.S. 729, 66 S.Ct. 37.

Plaintiffs also say they are entitled to recover under article 4 of the contract relative to changed conditions. Article 4 relates to changed physical conditions at the site of the work; it has no reference to changed governmental, political or economic conditions. Plaintiffs could hardly recover because the commandant of the post was changed from a mild-tempered old gentleman to an old “Blood and Guts”; or that the Democratic Administration was succeeded by a Republican Administration; or that the interest rate had changed; or because of the amalgamation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Federation of Labor. These would be changed conditions, indeed, and might affect the cost of performance of the contract, but neither they nor a change in traffic regulations were in the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the so-called agreement embodied in article 4.

The defendant’s demurrer is sustained and plaintiffs’ petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

WHALEY, Chief Justice, concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 F. Supp. 204, 107 Ct. Cl. 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallman-v-united-states-cc-1946.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack