Dredging engineer meaning3/1/2024 Prior to September, 1899, the United States was engaged in excavating a channel in the Christiana River and about the harbor of Wilmington, Delaware. The pertinent facts found by the court below are these: Of earth, for which, at the contract price, it should have been paid the sum sued for, but that the United States, in making settlement under the contract, despite the protest of the dredge company, had declined to pay upon the ground that excavating and removing the earth referred to was not within the contract. The relief sought was based on the averment that, under a contract for dredging a channel in the Christiana River and in or about the harbor of Wilmington, Delaware, made in 1899, and a supplementary contract made in June, 1901, the dredge company had excavated 260,430 cubic yards U. The appellant, the dredge company, sued to recover $28,321.76. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Where words used in a contract are plain and unambiguous, expert testimony as to their commercial signification is not admissible for the purpose of destroying the plain and obvious intendment of a contract, and so held that, where a government dredging contract, by its terms, expressly excluded material which slid into the excavation from the slope outside of the stakes, expert testimony to show that the trade meaning of the words "measured in place" includes such sliding material if dredged was properly excluded.Īfter the government has, against the contractor's protest, affixed a meaning to terms used in a contract, the contractor cannot reassert the same claim in regard to a supplementary contract for additional work of the same nature even if the original contract were susceptible of the construction claimed by him. 176 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 176 (1908) Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Company v. Supreme Court Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |