Shipman v. District of Columbia, 119 U.S. 148 (1886)

U.S. Supreme Court

Shipman v. District of Columbia, 119 U.S. 148 (1886)

Shipman v. District of Columbia

Argued November 3, 1886

Decided November 15, 1886

119 U.S. 148

Syllabus

Shipman did a large amount of work for the District of Columbia under a contract, and was paid for it according to its terms. He sued the District in the Court of Claims in equity, alleging a mistake in the contract, asking to have it reformed, and claiming to recover a large sum. The District answered and filed large counterclaims for alleged overpayments. The Court of Claims refused to reform the contract, but gave judgment for Shipman in the sum of $652.11, being the balance on the adjustment of such claims and counterclaims as were allowed by the court. See 18 Ct.Cl. 291. Both parties appealed. On the facts found in the record, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Claims.

U.S. Supreme Court

Shipman v. District of Columbia, 119 U.S. 148 (1886)

Shipman v. District of Columbia

Argued November 3, 1886

Decided November 15, 1886

119 U.S. 148

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

Shipman did a large amount of work for the District of Columbia under a contract, and was paid for it according to its terms. He sued the District in the Court of Claims in equity, alleging a mistake in the contract, asking to have it reformed, and claiming to recover a large sum. The District answered and filed large counterclaims for alleged overpayments. The Court of Claims refused to reform the contract, but gave judgment for Shipman in the sum of $652.11, being the balance on the adjustment of such claims and counterclaims as were allowed by the court. See 18 Ct.Cl. 291. Both parties appealed. On the facts found in the record, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Claims.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The judgment in this case is affirmed. No disputed questions of law are involved, and our views of the facts are so well expresses in the carefully prepared opinion of the Court of Claims found in Shipman v. District of Columbia, 18 Ct.Cl. 291, that we deem it unnecessary to do more than to refer to that opinion for the reasons of our decision.

Affirmed.