Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

R. P. Farnsworth & Co. v. Electrical Supply Co.

113 F.2d 111

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1940-07-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. It is urged that our language: “Not until the wall was rebuilt and the order passed to pay the $82.80 was there a final settlement of the contract,” means that payment or an order to pay is requisite to a final settlement. We do not so hold, but we say that there must be an unconditional and final ascertainment of the amount due. So long as the United States contend that the contractor must do something more and is holding back an amount, large or small, to secure full performance, there is no final settlement of the contract. It does not matter in this case whether rebuilding the wall was really a part of the contract or not, the Treasury was so contending, and was refusing payment till it should be done.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed R. P. Farnsworth & Co. v. Electrical Supply Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions
R.P. FARNSWORTH CO. v. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO.,113 F.2d 111(5th Cir. 1940)
R.P. FARNSWORTH CO., Inc., v. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO.
No. 9138.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 2, 1940.
Page 112
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Wayne G. Borah, Judge.

On motion for rehearing.

Rehearing denied.

For former opinion, see112 F.2d 150.
J.C. Henriques and Gordon Boswell, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Irving R. Saal and Lawrence K. Benson, both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
It is urged that our language: "Not until the wall was rebuilt and the order passed to pay the $82.80 was there a final settlement of the contract," means that payment or an order to pay is requisite to a final settlement. We do not so hold, but we say that there must be an unconditional and final ascertainment of the amount due. So long as the United States contend that the contractor must do something more and is holding back an amount, large or small, to secure full performance, there is no final settlement of the contract. It does not matter in this case whether rebuilding the wall was really a part of the contract or not, the Treasury was so contending, and was refusing payment till it should be done. Not until July 28, 1934, was it admitted that the contract was fully performed, counter claims were waived, and the $82.80 stated to be unconditionally owing. That it was at the same time ordered paid, is not essential, but plainly shows finality.

Rehearing denied.
McCORD, Circuit Judge, dissenting.Page 113
Page 272