
    ARTHUR W. SWEENY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (15 C. Cls. R., 400 109; U. S. R., 618.)
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    The claimant contracts to build a wall according to plans and specifications, to be inspected by an engineer of the defendants, and to become their property only after such engineer shall certify that it is . in all respects as contracted for. The engineer condemns, in the progress of the work, bricks, stone, &c. The contractor nevertheless proceeds and builds the wall of them. The engineer refuses to certify that tbe wall is constructed according to the contract, and the defendants tear it down and build another. The contractor brings his suit and endeavors to show a corrupt and fraudulent motive on the part of the engineer, and that the wall was actually built according to the contract.
    The court below decides—
    Where a contract provides that the claimant shall build a wall to be inspected from time to time, and when completed, by an engineer to be designated by the defendants, and that, after such engineer shall certify ‘‘ that it is in all respects as contracted for, it shall be received and become the property ” of the defendants, it must be held, in the absence of fraud, gross mistake, or acts implying bad faith, or neglect, that the engineer’s certificate is a condition precedent to payment, although the contract does not in terms make it such.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same ground and on the authority of Kill)erg’s Case, 97 U. S. B., 398.
   The Chiee Justice

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, December 17, 1883.  