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
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.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.