
    (13 C. Cls. R., 322; 105 U. S. R., 671.)
    James W. Harvey et al., appellants, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimants Appeal.
    
    
      The government advertises for proposals for the Bock Island Bridge, stating that detailed information, with regard to form and dimensions, can he obtained at the arsenal. The claimants, applying, are shown plans which fix the dimensions, the number of piers, ‡0. They “propose to l>aild the masonry of piers and abutments ” at a price per yard specified. Their bid is accepted and a written contract entered into. It provides that they shall “construct the piers and abutments in accordance with such plans and specifications as may be fixed by proper authority,” “the United States to furnish stone, cement, sand, and all necessary templets required for the work and nothing more.” Subsequently, the government requires them to erect the necessary coffer-dams. The plans and specifications furnished alter the dimensions of the piers so as to materially affect the value of the work. Parol evidence to shotv a mistake and reform the contract is excluded. Judgment is rendered for a less amount than they claim. (8 C. Cls. R., 501.) They accept payment and apply to Congress for relief. A private act is passed, referring their claim to this court “for hearing and adjudication,” and conferring jurisdiction to proceed “as a court of equity” “and according to the rules and principles of equity jurisprudence,” “reform said contract.” The claimants bring their second suit accordingly, but set up in addition demands al law which might have been and ivere passed upon in the former action.
    
    The court below excludes these matters. (12 C. Cls. R., 141.) It also holds on the merits that the contract should not be reformed. (13 C. Cls. R., 322.) Judgment for the defendants. The claimants appeal.
    The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the Supreme Court now holds: (1) That the contract should be reformed so as to make it conform to the claimants' proposals on which it was founded; (2) That it should also be reformed so that the value of the work should be estimated according to the original plans; (3) The court below has power to adjust the accounts between the parties so far as they are equitable demands unadjudicated; (4) That the court below properly excluded legal demands previously adjudicated; (5) That the question of interest remains for the court below to consider; (6) That the rule requiring the finding of facts has no reference to a case of equity jurisdiction conferred by a special act.
   Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, May 8, 1882.  