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

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 234 U.S. 29, click here.

United States v. Axman


No. 242


Argued March 9, 1914
Decided May 25, 1914
234 U.S. 36

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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.