
    ARCHIBALD HOLLERBACH ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    
      [47 C. Cls. R., 236 ; 233 U. S. R., 165.]
    
      On the plaintiff's appeal.
    
    This case involves the question whether there has been a transfer of the contract such as would cause the annulment of a contract under section 3737, Revised Statutes. Also, whether certain representations as to the conditions of the work to be done amount to a warranty of the quantity of earth to be excavated.
    The court below; decides:
    I. If, subsequently to a contract with the Government, a corporation is organized, the stock of which is owned chiefly by the contractors, and the work is done under their supervision, it is not a transfer which will cause the annulment of the contract under the Revised Statutes (§ 3737).
    
      II.Where a contract requires an excavation oí a certain quantity of earth with a permissible increase or decrease, the contractor is entitled to be furnished with the minimum quantity ; and if it be not furnished, he will be entitled to recover the profits which he might have made on the deficiency.
    III. Where the contract represents that “ the dam is now boohed for about SO feet with brohen stone, sawdust, and sediment to a height within % or S feet of the crest,” while the facts are materially different and greatly increase the cost of the contractor’s work, the representation can not be regarded as a warranty if the contract contains the usual provision in Government contracts that the quantities given are approximate only and that bidders must visit the locality of the work and make their own estimates of its facilities and difficulties.
    IV. Where delay was caused by conditions other than those represented in the contract, the representation does not excuse the contractor unless it amounted to a warranty. Contractors are presumed in law to contract for the completion of their work at a time specified with a knowledge of the conditions as they actually exist.
    The court below was reversed on the ground that a positive statement in a contract as to present conditions of the work must be taken as true and binding upon the Government, and loss resulting from a mistaken representation of an essential condition should fall upon it rather than on the contractor, even though there are provisions in other paragraphs of the contract requiring the contractor to make independent investigation of facts.
   Me. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 6,1914.  