United States v. Axman
234 U.S. 36 (1914)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Axman, 234 U.S. 36 (1914)

United States v. Axman

No. 242

Argued March 9, 1914

Decided May 25, 1914

234 U.S. 36

Syllabus

Where, after default of the original contractor, the contract is relet, the original contractor is not bound for difference unless the contract as relet is the same as the original contract. .

Where a contract for dredging requires the dredged material to be deposited in a specified location, changes made as to the location for depositing such materials amount to such an important variation that the first contractor cannot be held for difference. United States v. McMullen,222 U. S. 460, distinguished.

Change in location for depositing material dredged under a government contract is not to be regarded as a minor change; it is clearly an important one.

193 F. 644 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the rights and liabilities of a contractor and his surety under a contract with the government, are stated in the opinion.

Page 234 U. S. 38

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.