
    PHŒNIX BRIDGE COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [38 C. Cls. R., 492; 211 U. S. R., 188.]
    
      On the Claimant's Appeal.
    
    The claimant agrees to construct the Rock Island bridge according to plans and specifications. The specifications require a “ draw-span,” which is carried away, before completion, by a freshet. As the claimant is about to resume work it is advised by the officer in charge to substitute a “ liftspan," so that there shall be no obstruction to navigation. The claimant objects to the advice upon the ground that the liftspan is not required by the contract and will involve serious additional expense. The officer insists. In carrying out the advice of the officer the claimant is put to the additional expense of $6,683. At the time of final payment a controversy exists as to the liability of the claimant for delay in the completion of the work and of the defendants for the extra cost of the liftspan.
    The court below decides:
    I.Where the ordnance officer in charge of the work of constructing a bridge advises or orders the contractor to put in a temporary “ liftspan,” the advice or order being given to meet the exigency of the immediate and unexpected opening of navigation in the river, his action is not obligatory upon the contractor, who, if he performs, can not recover the extra cost to which he has been subjected.
    II.An unexpected freshet will not relieve a contractor from completing a bridge within the time within which he has agreed to complete the work. If a party contract to perform that which is possible and does not he is liable. It is only where an obligation is imposed by law and not by contract that an act of God or of the Government will excuse him for nonperformance.
    III.Where- at the time of the final payment upon a contract each party asserts a liability upon the part of the other, payment of the full amount of the contract price by the defendants and the giving of a receipt by the claimant which acknowledges it as payment “ in full for all charges, claims, adjustments, differences, or other alleged indebtedness incident to the work, or related to it,” constitute a compromise, conclusive upon the claimant.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on a construction now given to the contract.

Mr. Justice "White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 30, 1909.  