William C. Atwater & Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

William C. Atwater & Co. v. United States

56 Ct. Cl. 458, 1921 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 285, 1921 WL 1246

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 21, 1921

DocketNo. 34215

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Ct. Cl. 458 (William C. Atwater & Co. 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

William C. Atwater & Co. v. United States, 56 Ct. Cl. 458, 1921 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 285, 1921 WL 1246 (cc 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

DowNet, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case as presented is in essential respects like and must be controlled by the case of Willard, Sutherland & Company v. United States, ante, p. 413, and detailed discussion will, therefore, not be deemed necessary.

The chief difference is found in the fact that this plaintiff seems to have conceded the right of the defendant to require them to furnish an additional quantity of coal over and above the estimated quantity stated in their contract, but claimed that under another clause of 'the contract they were relieved from furnishing 8,219 tons, and as to that only they demanded the market price. If the case were presented here on the basis of the contention thus made, we would have difficulty in finding merit in it, but that theory is abandoned and the claim made here, as in the Sutherland case, is for the market price for all coal furnished in excess of the estimated 200,000 tons. The effect upon plaintiff’s case, as presented, of [463]*463some of the facts found as to its attitude during the progress of the contract and its complete departure now from its claimed rights then, both in theory and amount, might be discussed but, apparently, no good purpose could be served. Upon the authority of the Sutherland ease, the plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed.

Graham, Judge; Hat, Judge; Booth, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

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

DowNet, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case as presented is in essential respects like and must be controlled by the case of Willard, Sutherland & Company v. United States, ante, p. 413, and detailed discussion will, therefore, not be deemed necessary.

The chief difference is found in the fact that this plaintiff seems to have conceded the right of the defendant to require them to furnish an additional quantity of coal over and above the estimated quantity stated in their contract, but claimed that under another clause of 'the contract they were relieved from furnishing 8,219 tons, and as to that only they demanded the market price. If the case were presented here on the basis of the contention thus made, we would have difficulty in finding merit in it, but that theory is abandoned and the claim made here, as in the Sutherland case, is for the market price for all coal furnished in excess of the estimated 200,000 tons. The effect upon plaintiff’s case, as presented, of [463]*463some of the facts found as to its attitude during the progress of the contract and its complete departure now from its claimed rights then, both in theory and amount, might be discussed but, apparently, no good purpose could be served. Upon the authority of the Sutherland ease, the plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed.

Graham, Judge; Hat, Judge; Booth, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Ct. Cl. 458, 1921 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 285, 1921 WL 1246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-c-atwater-co-v-united-states-cc-1921.