Skip to content


District of Columbia Vs. Dickson - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number165 U.S. 341
AppellantDistrict of Columbia
RespondentDickson
Excerpt:
district of columbia v. dickson - 165 u.s. 341 (1897) u.s. supreme court district of columbia v. dickson, 165 u.s. 341 (1897) district of columbia v. dickson no. 620 submitted january 4, 1897 decided february 15, 1897 165 u.s. 341 appeal from the court of claims syllabus district of columbia v. johnson, 165 u. s. 330 , approved and again followed. the case is stated in the opinion. mr. justice peckham delivered the opinion of the court. in this case, which is of the same general nature as the foregoing cases, the petitioner, who was the assignee of one of the contractors, filed his original petition in the court of claims december 15, 1880. the case, after being heard, was submitted to that court on.....
Judgment:
District of Columbia v. Dickson - 165 U.S. 341 (1897)
U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Dickson, 165 U.S. 341 (1897)

District of Columbia v. Dickson

No. 620

Submitted January 4, 1897

Decided February 15, 1897

165 U.S. 341

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

District of Columbia v. Johnson, 165 U. S. 330 , approved and again followed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, which is of the same general nature as the foregoing cases, the petitioner, who was the assignee of one of the contractors, filed his original petition in the Court of Claims December 15, 1880. The case, after being heard, was submitted to that court on the 26th of May, 1882, and was by it dismissed on the 29th of May, 1882. On the 6th of April, 1895, the judgment was vacated, and a new trial granted by virtue of the act of February 13, 1895. 31 Ct.Cl. 399.

The difference between the contract price and the board-rate price was claimed, and Dickson, as assignee, was allowed to recover $1,386.30 for such difference, belonging to him by virtue of the assignment, and which sum the court held to have "been due and payable June 2, 1873, within the meaning and intent of the Act of February 13, 1895, and the Act of June 16, 1880."

Page 165 U. S. 342

For the same reasons as given in the foregoing cases, this judgment of the Court of Claims must also be

Reversed, and the cause remanded, with the same directions as in the other cases.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //