United States ex rel. Thomas Laughlin Co. v. Morgan

111 F. 474, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5258
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine
DecidedSeptember 15, 1900
DocketNo. 30
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 111 F. 474 (United States ex rel. Thomas Laughlin Co. v. Morgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Thomas Laughlin Co. v. Morgan, 111 F. 474, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5258 (circtdme 1900).

Opinion

WEBB, District Judge.

This is an action of debt on a bond executed by the defendant Morgan as principal and the American Surety Company of New York as surety for the performance of a contract by Morgan to supply materials and do work on fortifications to be constructed by the United States on Diamond Island, near Portland, Me. Trial by jury is waived, and the cause is submitted to the court; the right of exception to rulings of the court on questions of law during the trial, and in its conclusions upon the facts, being reserved.

Upon the hearing the court finds the following facts;

(i) The contract between Morgan and the United States is as follows:

Proposals for Building Gun Emplacements and .Wharf on Great Diamond.
Island, Portland Harbor, Maine.
U. S. Engineer Office, 537 Congress Street.
Portland. Maine, January 21, 1897.
Sealed proposals for building gun emplacements and wharf on Great Diamond Island, Portland I-Iarbor, Maine, will be received until 3 p. m. February 18, 1897, and then .publicly opened. For information, apply to
A. N. Damrell, Bieut. Col. of Engineers.
Specifications.
General Instructions for Bidders.
1. The attention of bidders is specially invited to the acts of congress approved February 26, 1885, and February 23, 1887, as printed in vol. 23, page [475]*475332, and vol. 24. page 414, United States Statutes at Large, which prohibit the importation of foreigners and aliens, under contract or agreement, to perform labor in the United. States or territories or (lie District of Columbia.
2. “That all material purchased under the foregoing provisions of this act shall be of American manufacture, except in eases when, in the judgment of the secretary of war, it is to the manifest interest of the United States 1o make purchases in limited quantities abroad, which material shall be admitted free of duty.” (Extract from fortification appropriation act, approved June (5. 1896.)
3. Maps of the localities may be seen at this ofiice. Bidders, or their authorized agents, are expected to visit the place, and to make their own estimates of the facilities and difficulties attending the execution of the work, including the uncertainty of weather and all other contingencies.
4. No proposal will be considered unless accompanied by a guaranty in manner and form as directed in these instructions.
5. All bids and guaranties must be made in triplicate, upon printed forms to be obtained at this office.
6. The guaranty attached to each copy of the bid must be signed by two responsible guarantors, to be certified as good and sufficient guarantors by a judge or clerk of United ¡States court, United States district attorney. United States commissioner, or judge or clerk of a state court of record, with tlio seal of said court attached.
7. A firm, as such, will not be accepted as surety, nor a partner for it co-partner or firm of which he is a member. Stockholders who are not officers of a corporation may be accepted as sureties for such corporation. Sureties must be citizens of the United States.
8. Each signature to guaranties and bonds shall have affixed to it an adhesive seal. All signatures to proposals, guaranties, contracts, and bonds should be written out in full, and each signature to guaranties, contraéis, and bonds should be attested by at least one witness, and when practicable by a separate witness to each signature.
ik Each guarantor must justify in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars on bids for the emplacements, and three thousand dollars on bids for the wharf. The liability of tin' guarantors and bidder is determined by the act of March 3, 1883 (22 Statutes, 487, chap. 120), and is expressed in the guaranty attached to the bid.
10. A proposal by a person who affixes to his signature the word “President,” “Secretary,” “Agent,” or other designation, without disclosing his principal, is the proposal of the individual. That by a corporation must be signed with I he name of the corporation, followed by the signature of the president, secretary, or other person authorized to bind it in the matter, who must lile evidence of his authority to do so. That by a firm must be signed with the firm name, by a member thereof, or by its agent, giving the names of all members of the firm. Note, also, par. 16, infra.
13. Tlie place of residence of every bidder, and post-office address, with county and state, must be given after his signature.
12. All juices must be written, as well as expressed in figures.
LU. One copy each of the advertisement, the instructions for bidders, and the specifications, all of which can be obtained at this ofiice on application by mail or in person, must bo securely attached to each copy of the proposal, and be considered as comprising a part of it. A written memoranda offered for inspection in connection with the drawings will also be considered a part and parcel of the proposal, and of any contract subsequently made in pursuance of it.
14. Proposals must bo prepared without assistance from any person employed in or belonging to the military service of the United States or employed under this ofiice.
15. No bidder will be informed, directly or indirectly, of (lie name of any por,son intending to bid or not to bid, or to whom information in respect to proposals may have been given.
1C. Any one signing the proposal as the agent of another or others must file with It legal evidence of his authority to do so.
17. All blank spaces in the proposal and bond must bo filled in, and no [476]*476change shall be made in the phraseology of the proposal, or addition to the items .mentioned therein. Any conditions, limitations, or provisos attached to proposals will be liable to render them informal and cause their rejection.
18. Alterations by erasure or interlineation must be explained or noted in the proposal over the signature of the bidder.
19. If the bidder wishes to withdraw his proposal, he may do so before the time fixed for the opening, without prejudice to himself, by communicating his purpose in writing to the officer who holds it, and when reached it shall be handed to him or his authorized agent, unread.
20. Treasonable grounds for supposing that any bidder is interested in more than one bid for the same item will cause the rejection of all bids in which he is interested.
21. No bids received after the time set for opening of proposals will be considered.
22. The proposals and guaranties must be placed in a sealed envelope marked “Proposals for Gun Emplacements (or Wharf) on Great Diamond Island,” and inclosed in another sealed envelope addressed to Lieut. Col. A. ■ N. Damrell, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Maine.

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

Related

Board of Public Education v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
159 A. 367 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1932)
United States v. Hercules Co.
52 F.2d 451 (S.D. Mississippi, 1931)
Y. D. Lumber Co. v. Refuge Cotton Oil Co.
120 So. 447 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1929)
Union Indemnity Co. v. State Ex Rel. R. S. Armstrong & Bro.
118 So. 148 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
B. F. & C. M. Davis Co. v. W. E. Callaghan Const. Co.
298 S.W. 273 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1927)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yazoo County Ex Rel. Rings
110 So. 780 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926)
Frazier v. Radford
23 S.W.2d 639 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1926)
Franzen v. Southern Surety Co.
246 P. 30 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1926)
Fitzgerald v. Neal
231 P. 645 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Henderson County
253 S.W. 835 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
H. H. Robertson Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co.
77 Pa. Super. 422 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
Chicago Lumber Co. v. Douglas
131 P. 563 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
Beals v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
78 N.Y.S. 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 F. 474, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-thomas-laughlin-co-v-morgan-circtdme-1900.