
    WEEHAWKEN DRY DOCK CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. C-941.
    Decided May 28, 1928]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Contract for reconstruction of vessel; liquidated damages; delays and interference by Govermnent. — See ~Weehaaoloen Dry DocJc Co. v. United States, ante, p. 662.
    
      The Reporter's statement of the case:
    
      Mr. Jesse G. Adkins for the plaintiff. Mr. Olarence W. De Knight was on the briefs.
    
      Mr. George Dyson, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant. Mr. Dan M. Jackson was on the brief.
    The court made special findings of facts, as follows:
    I. Plaintiff is a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey and at the times hereinafter stated was engaged in the business of building vessels by contract and of making repairs to all kinds of vessels, having its principal place of business at the foot of Baldwin Avenue, in the city or township of Weehawken, State of New Jersey.
    II. On the 12th day of April, 1919, plaintiff, the Wee-hawken Dry Dock Company, a corporation, entered into a contract with the United States of America, represented by Capt. William L. MacQuillan, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, as contracting officer, whereby it undertook to furnish all necessary labor, material, equipment, and refit the S. S. El Oriente, in accordance with specifications as contained in circular advertisement, M. & E. Schedule No. 331, dated April 9, 1919, thereto attached, at a total cost of $129,500, within 28 days from April 15, 1919, to wit, on or before May 13, 1919. Delays not for the convenience of the Government nor due to acts of God were to cause a deduction from the contract price at the rate of $1,000 per day of delay. A copy of said contract as Exhibit B and a copy of the specifications governing same as Exhibit A were attached to plaintiff’s petition and are made a part hereof by reference.
    Plaintiff’s plant and piers were fully equipped with all the essential facilities for the performance of the wort in hand, and the pier to which the vessels were fastened was secure and safe.
    III. After inspection of piers belonging to plaintiff company, at the foot of Baldwin Avenue, in the city or township of Weehawken, State of New Jersey, the officer in charge elected to have the work done at said piers, and the vessel was accordingly delivered on April 15, 1919, by the Government to the plaintiff in the stream in front of the said piers and on the following day docked by the defendant’s agents at the north side of plaintiff’s Pier No. 1.
    IY. Supplementary to the said contract of April 12, 1919, the plaintiff, on May X, 1919, entered into a further contract with the United States of America, represented by Capt. William L. MacQuillan, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, as contracting officer, whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff should receive $2,000 less than stipulated in said original contract, in consideration whereof plaintiff was to receive payments from time to time instead of one payment on completion of the work and its acceptance. A copy of said supplementary contract was attached to plaintiff’s petition as Exhibit C and is made a part hereof by reference.
    Y. When delivered to the plaintiff the vessel was dirty, full of dunnage, ashes, trash, and filth. About four days’ time was consumed in bringing the ship into a condition whereby the work contemplated could be started. This delay, together with the delay of one day in docking the boat, resulted in a further contract dated May 12, 1919, supplementary to the said contract of April 12, 1919, as modified, between the United States of America, represented by Capt. William L. MacQuillan, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, as contracting officer, and the plaintiff, whereby it was agreed that the time limit for completion of the work and deliveries should be extended five days, or to May 18, 1919. A copy of said supplemental contract was attached to the plaintiff’s petition as Exhibit E and is made a part hereof by reference.
    VI. Plaintiff entered into a further contract dated May 10, 1919, with the United States of America, represented by Capt. William L. MacQuillan, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, as contracting officer, whereby it undertook to furnish further materials and sendees for construction work on the S. S. El Oriente in accordance with letter of proposal dated May 10, 1919, at a total cost of $10,170, all work under the contract to be performed at the contractor a yard and completed May 20, 1919. A copy of said contraer and of the proposal letter governing* same was attached to plaintiff’s petition as Exhibit D and is made a part hereof by reference.
    Much of the work under this contract, because of its nature, had to be completed before it was possible to begin or complete various items of the original contract.
    VII. On June 7, 1919, the work of refitting the S. S. El Oriente, under the contract of April 12, 1919, and the contract of May 10, 1919, was completed and accepted by the Government.
    VIII. Twenty thousand dollars as liquidated damages for the 20 days’ time the completion of the work under the contracts was delayed beyond the time fixed in the agreement of May 12 extending the time limit was deducted by the Government from the contract price as fixed therein, and said sum of $20,000 was withheld by the Government and was not included in the payments made to the contractor upon the completion and acceptance of the work under the contracts. Plaintiff protested against the withholding of this money.
    IX. On May. 7,1919, on order of the defendant, the vessel was removed over plaintiff’s objection, from plaintiff’s pier at Weehawken to the Government’s Pier No. 12. The Government pier was poorly situated and equipped for efficient work as compared with plaintiff’s pier, and this movement and the matters connected therewith and resulting therefrom caused delay and added expense to the plaintiff.
    X. The defendant failed to provide the necessary materials at such time or times as required by the plaintiff and was consistently slow in passing upon the various and numerous plans submitted to its officers by the plaintiff. This caused added delay and expense to the plaintiff.
    XI. But for the failure of the -Government to furnish materials and supplies when required, and its failure to promptly approve the plans for work upon the vessels, and but for its removal of the vessels in the midst of the work, plaintiff could and would have completed the work and delivered the vessels within contract time.
    XII. Because of the delays as found above, and the removal of the vessel from plaintiff’s pier, plaintiff incurred additional cost and expense as follows:
    One hour for each man in transportation from yard to ship and return_$3,770. 80
    Oar fare from yard to ship and return at 100_ 497.20
    Two trucks and drivers, 23 days, at $20 per day_ 920.00
    One half the expenses supplying facilities at Government pier for performance of work. (The other half chargeable to Ml Sol.)
    
    Connecting from water main to ship_$67. 50
    Installing telephone_ 28. 00
    Hiring steam lighter, 23 days, at $50 per day_ 575.00
    Installing on lighter 12-tool air compressor, 23 days, at $40 per day_ 460.00
    Towage on steam lighter_ 15.00
    Engineer at $7.20 per day, 22 days_ 79.20
    Fireman at $5.20 per day, 22 days_ 57.20
    Overtime for engineer and fireman, 2 hours per day, 22 days_ 68.20
    Connecting air pipe from lighter to ship; furnishing pipe connection and labor, 6 days, machinist and 4 helpers_ 32. 00
    Pipe and fittings_ 34.00
    - 1,416.10
    10 per cent of labor paid ($48,232.80) while moving ship from Weehawken to Hoboken; waiting for blue prints to be O. K’d, and waiting for materials to be furnished by Government_ 4, 823.28.
    Loss of efficiency of labor by moving ship to Hoboken, 10 percent- 4,823.28
    Overhead, during delays_ 2, 527.26
    18,777.92
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
   Moss, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case was argued and submitted with two other cases between the same parties, C-977 and C-942. The opinion in the latter case decided as of this date is applicable to the issues involved herein. Under the ruling of the court in that case plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $20,000 deducted by the Government from payments due plaintiff as liquidated damages. It is further entitled to recover the sum of $18,777.92 as additional cost and expense due to delays by the Government, and to the removal of the vessel from plaintiff’s pier as stated in Finding XII.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $38,777.92, and it is so adjudged and ordered.

GREEN, Judge; Graham, Judge; and Booth; GMef Justice, concur.  