Sanders v. District of Columbia

Court of Claims

Sanders v. District of Columbia

20 Ct. Cl. 337, 1885 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 27, 1800 WL 1408

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 18, 1885

DocketNo. 201

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 Ct. Cl. 337 (Sanders v. District of Columbia) 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

Sanders v. District of Columbia, 20 Ct. Cl. 337, 1885 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 27, 1800 WL 1408 (cc 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, as assignee of James A. Nelson, seeks to recover a sum of money retained by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and alleged to be due under the terms of a paving contract made by said Nelson with the Board of Public Works.

The claimant, as assignee of the contractor, stands in the place of his assignor, and may recover what the latter would have recovered but for the assignment, and no more. (Brown et al. v. The District of Columbia, 17 C. Cls. R., 402.) The contractor was allowed and paid, for paving, grading, and hauling, a sum considerably in excess of his contract-price and in excess of the amount claimed herein. As has already been decided in this court (Roche v. The District of Columbia, 18 C. Cls. R., 217), such an allowance was unwarranted and illegal. The petition is therefore dismissed.

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

Davis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, as assignee of James A. Nelson, seeks to recover a sum of money retained by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and alleged to be due under the terms of a paving contract made by said Nelson with the Board of Public Works.

The claimant, as assignee of the contractor, stands in the place of his assignor, and may recover what the latter would have recovered but for the assignment, and no more. (Brown et al. v. The District of Columbia, 17 C. Cls. R., 402.) The contractor was allowed and paid, for paving, grading, and hauling, a sum considerably in excess of his contract-price and in excess of the amount claimed herein. As has already been decided in this court (Roche v. The District of Columbia, 18 C. Cls. R., 217), such an allowance was unwarranted and illegal. The petition is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ct. Cl. 337, 1885 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 27, 1800 WL 1408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-district-of-columbia-cc-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack