DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
v.
HALL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hall, a government contractor who had been paid partially in depreciated certificates for work completed in 1877, sought additional compensation under an 1895 act allowing claims for the difference between contract rates and "board rates." The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Claims' judgment awarding Hall this difference, holding that the 1895 act did not entitle him to the additional compensation he claimed based on the reasoning applied in related cases involving similar contractor claims.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Peckham delivered the opinion of. the court.
This another of the same character of actions as those above disposed of. Hall was one of the contractors for doing-work of the same nature, and filed his petition under the act of 1880 in December of that year: In that petition he alleged that he had done certain work and that he was' paid for his-work, under his contract, by certain certificates which were worth only fifty per cent of their face value, and which he consented to receive only at that rate, and he asked for judgment for the other fifty per cent of his contract price. He failed in the primary object of that suit, but he did recover on some other ground a small judgment of about one thousand dollars, which was ^entered June 1, 1885. Subsequently, and in.pursuance of the act of 1895, he applied for a new trial for the purpose of claiming the “ board rates ” compensation for the work done by him at contract prices, under circumstances mentioned in the foregoing cases. The Court of Claims gave judgment in his favor for that difference between the two rates, and found that under the true intent and meaning of the acts of 1895 and 1880 the sum for which it gave judgment “ became due and payable on the 1st of January, 1877,” which. \Vas the date when the plaintiff had-completed his work under the contract^ ' 31 C. Cl. 376. vFor the reasons mentioned in the foregoing cases, the judg ment of the Court of Claims in this case must also be
' Reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion.