Hingston v. United States

Court of Claims

Hingston v. United States

55 Ct. Cl. 297, 1920 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 91, 1920 WL 620

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 19, 1920

DocketNo. 27283

StatusPublished

This text of 55 Ct. Cl. 297 (Hingston 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

Hingston v. United States, 55 Ct. Cl. 297, 1920 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 91, 1920 WL 620 (cc 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT.

The court’s conclusion is based upon the following considerations :

1. The failure and difficulty in unwatering the plaintiffs’ cofferdam was not attributable to “ a leak ” in the small cofferdam or in the river wall. There was a leak or break in part of the small cofferdam, but the water that found its way into that inclosure did not materially affect the plaintiff’s place of work until they cut the river wall. For this cutting the defendant is not responsible. It was repaired, and the plaintiffs’ cofferdam was unwatered before defendant had remedied the leak in the small cofferdam. The river wall was, and continued to be, reasonably adapted to the uses for which it was designed.

2. While it was probably the defendant’s duty to repair the leak in the small cofferdam, it did so, and gave it to plaintiffs after being repaired in a suitable condition. For the use by defendant’s agents of plaintiffs’ men, machinery, or material the defendant would be liable to plaintiff for the reasonable value thereof if defendant did not pay the men, but there is no proof of what this service or use is worth or from which the same can be found.

3. There is an allowance of $271.90 as the difference between actual cost and payment for laying concrete. If the [305]*305additional cost of beating and laying concrete when the thermometer was below 36° was greater than the amount stated there is no proof from which the same can be ascertained, and there being no proof of the cost there can be no allowance for any profit on such cost.

4. The findings sufficiently show the other items in detail.

An important fact is that the plaintiffs’ bid was quite low for the work required. It was nearly 50 per cent below the nest lowest bid.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $271.90, as shown by Finding XIII.

As to all other claims the petition is dismissed.

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

MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT.

The court’s conclusion is based upon the following considerations :

1. The failure and difficulty in unwatering the plaintiffs’ cofferdam was not attributable to “ a leak ” in the small cofferdam or in the river wall. There was a leak or break in part of the small cofferdam, but the water that found its way into that inclosure did not materially affect the plaintiff’s place of work until they cut the river wall. For this cutting the defendant is not responsible. It was repaired, and the plaintiffs’ cofferdam was unwatered before defendant had remedied the leak in the small cofferdam. The river wall was, and continued to be, reasonably adapted to the uses for which it was designed.

2. While it was probably the defendant’s duty to repair the leak in the small cofferdam, it did so, and gave it to plaintiffs after being repaired in a suitable condition. For the use by defendant’s agents of plaintiffs’ men, machinery, or material the defendant would be liable to plaintiff for the reasonable value thereof if defendant did not pay the men, but there is no proof of what this service or use is worth or from which the same can be found.

3. There is an allowance of $271.90 as the difference between actual cost and payment for laying concrete. If the [305]*305additional cost of beating and laying concrete when the thermometer was below 36° was greater than the amount stated there is no proof from which the same can be ascertained, and there being no proof of the cost there can be no allowance for any profit on such cost.

4. The findings sufficiently show the other items in detail.

An important fact is that the plaintiffs’ bid was quite low for the work required. It was nearly 50 per cent below the nest lowest bid.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $271.90, as shown by Finding XIII.

As to all other claims the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 Ct. Cl. 297, 1920 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 91, 1920 WL 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hingston-v-united-states-cc-1920.