Rumsey v. United States

Court of Claims

Rumsey v. United States

88 Ct. Cl. 254, 1939 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 258, 1839 WL 2247

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 9, 1939

DocketNo. 43174

StatusPublished

This text of 88 Ct. Cl. 254 (Rumsey 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

Rumsey v. United States, 88 Ct. Cl. 254, 1939 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 258, 1839 WL 2247 (cc 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

[263]*263MEMORANDUM

Under the provisions of the contract involved, the plaintiff’s claim was considered by a Board of Changes made up of two representatives of the Navy Department and one representative of the plaintiff. This Board on January 19,1934, found that the plaintiff was entitled to $13,493.36 extra compensation due to the increased cost of cofferdam construction and the “cost of sinking the intake excavation” over and above the originally estimated cost. The site of the work was changed and this change in location brought about the conditions which resulted in extra cost to the plaintiff. Every official of the Navy Department charged with considering and recommending with respect to the claim approved it, and after allowance by the Board a voucher in plaintiff’s favor was issued by the Bureau of Yards and Docks. The General Accounting Office later refused pay[264]*264ment of the same and denied the claim. The General Accounting Office was without jurisdiction to consider it. The contract itself under the facts of this case determined the rights of the parties. McShain Co. v. United States, 83 C. Cls. 406, and authorities therein cited. The plaintiff is. clearly entitled to the judgment awarded.

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

[263]*263MEMORANDUM

Under the provisions of the contract involved, the plaintiff’s claim was considered by a Board of Changes made up of two representatives of the Navy Department and one representative of the plaintiff. This Board on January 19,1934, found that the plaintiff was entitled to $13,493.36 extra compensation due to the increased cost of cofferdam construction and the “cost of sinking the intake excavation” over and above the originally estimated cost. The site of the work was changed and this change in location brought about the conditions which resulted in extra cost to the plaintiff. Every official of the Navy Department charged with considering and recommending with respect to the claim approved it, and after allowance by the Board a voucher in plaintiff’s favor was issued by the Bureau of Yards and Docks. The General Accounting Office later refused pay[264]*264ment of the same and denied the claim. The General Accounting Office was without jurisdiction to consider it. The contract itself under the facts of this case determined the rights of the parties. McShain Co. v. United States, 83 C. Cls. 406, and authorities therein cited. The plaintiff is. clearly entitled to the judgment awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Ct. Cl. 254, 1939 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 258, 1839 WL 2247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rumsey-v-united-states-cc-1939.