Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 (1914). · Go Syfert
Search
Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 (1914). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · 2 courts · …in its positive assertion of the nature of this much of the work it made a representation upon which the claimants had a right to rely without an investigation to prove its falsity. ✓
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · …might be presumed to speak with knowledge and authority. ✓
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1982 · 2 courts · …a government contract should be interpreted as are contracts between individuals, with a view to ascertaining the intention of the parties and to give it effect accordingly, if that can be done consistently with the terms of the instrument. ✓
804 citation events (168 in the last 25 years) across 84 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Salt Lake City Corporation v. Sekisui SPR Americas (utd, 2022-08-04) · Strongest negative: Robert E. McKee, Inc. v. City of Atlanta (gand, 1976-05-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1915 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1915 1970 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Robert E. McKee, Inc. v. City of Atlanta (2×)
N.D. Ga. · 1976 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Hollerbach, supra, 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S.Ct. 553, at 556 , where the Court concluded that, although the contractors, by independent investigation, could have discovered the true nature of the subsurface conditions, “the specifications assured them of the character of the material, — a matter concerning which the government might be presumed to speak with knowledge and authority. . . .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Salt Lake City Corporation v. Sekisui SPR Americas
D. Utah · 2022 · confidence medium
Thorn Const. Co. v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 598 P.2d 10 365, 370 (Utah 1979) (contractor was entitled to damages for extra transportation costs where it relied upon an inaccurate representation that borrow material near the construction site would be suitable for use in the project); Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 172 (1914) (cited in Thorn Construction) (contractor was entitled to damages for extra costs where it relied upon an inaccurate specifications regarding the character of material conditions related to a dam repair project); Souza & McCue Const. Co. v. Superior Ct., 370 P…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Contango Operators, Inc. v. United States (3×)
S.D. Tex. · 2014 · confidence medium
Id. at 554.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Murphy v. City of Springfield
Mo. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Hollerbach, 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S.Ct. at 556 , 58 L.Ed. at 901 (emphasis added).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Teledyne Lewisburg v. The United States (8×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co., 253 U.S. 1, 10 , 40 S.Ct. 423, 424 , 64 L.Ed. 735 (1920); Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 169, 172 , 34 S.Ct. 553, 554, 555 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914); Whittaker Corp. v. United States, 195 Ct.Cl. 161 , 443 F.2d 1373 (1971); Thompson Ramo Wooldridge Inc. v. United States, 175 Ct.Cl. 527 , 361 F.2d 222 (1966); Radionics, Inc., ASBCA No. 22727 , 81-1 BCA ¶ 15,011 ; Viewlex, Inc., ASBCA No. 12584 , 71—1 BCA ¶ 8692, aff'd on rehearing, 71-2 BCA ¶ 9021 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Golomore Associates v. NJ State Highway Auth.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1980 · confidence medium
Hollerbach v. *59 United States, 233 U.S. 165, 171-173 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898, 901 (1914); Ashton Company Inc., Contr. & Eng. v. State, 9 Ariz. App. 564 , 454 P. 2d 1004 (Ct.App. 1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Warner Construction Corp. v. City of Los Angeles
Cal. · 1970 · confidence medium
We then quoted from Hollerbach v. United States (1914) 233 U.S. 165, 172 [ 58 L.Ed. 898, 901 , 34 S.Ct. 553 ]: “It ‘would be going quite too far to interpret the general language of the other [sections of the contract] as requiring independent investigation of facts which the specifications furnished by the government as a basis of the contract left in no doubt. ...
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J. A. Thompson & Son, Inc. v. State
Haw. · 1970 · confidence medium
Co. v. United States, 258 U.S. 6 (1922), after reviewing Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 (1914); Christie v. United States, 237 U.S. 234 (1915); United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co., 253 U.S. 1 (1920); and United States v. Smith, 256 U.S. 11 (1921), said at page 11: “They all declare the principle that the Government will be liable in the same circumstances that private individuals would be liable, but necessarily, neither is liable if neither make representations.” In Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 169 (1914), the Supreme Court held that where the government makes …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) EH Morrill Co. v. State of California (2×)
Cal. · 1967 · confidence medium
It is clearly a “ 'positive and material representation as to a condition presumably within the knowledge of the government, ’ ...” (Hollerbach v. United States (1914) 233 U.S. 165,169 [ 58 L.Ed. 898 , 34 S.Ct. 553 ].) It appears from the opinion in Wunderlich that disclamatory provisions may be considered in determining whether the statement alleged to constitute a warranty of condition is so in fact, especially when the statement is not cast in the form of a positive assertion of fact.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wunderlich v. State of California Ex Rel. Department of Public Works
Cal. · 1967 · confidence medium
(Hollerhach v. United States (1914) 233 U.S. 165, 172 [ 58 L.Ed. 898 , 34 S.Ct. 553 ].) But if statements “honestly made” may be considered as “suggestive only,” expenses caused by unforeseen conditions will be placed on the contractor, especially if the contract so stipulates.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1965 · confidence medium
It was not incumbent upon the plaintiff, prior to submitting its bid and entering into the contract, to conduct its own investigation in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of the defendant’s positive assertions regarding subsurface conditions encountered in drilling holes 260 and 261, even though the contract contained a general condition stating that “The Contractor further acknowledges that he has satisfied himself as to the character, quality and quantity of surface and sub-surface materials to be encountered insofar as this information is reasonably ascertainable from an inspectio…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M. L. Shalloo, Inc. v. Ricciardi & Sons Construction, Inc.
Mass. · 1965 · confidence medium
Thus if Shalloo was reasonably expected to rely and did rely upon that report, and if the report, together with other statements made in behalf of Construction, did represent the site to be one which would normally be dry, then the wet condition actually found on the site might constitute a breach of a warranty for which Shalloo *688 could recover. • See Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165, 169-172 (which, however, in its discussion of provisions not found in this subcontract, may go beyond the rule of the Massachusetts cases already cited); Christie v. United States, 237 U. S. 234, 2…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ellis Bros. v. United States
S.D. Cal. · 1961 · confidence medium
Stage Co., 1905, 199 U.S. 414 , 26 S.Ct. 69 , 50 L.Ed. 251 and Hollerbach v. United States, 1914, 233 U.S. 165 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 , pressed upon us, do not help the plaintiff.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eastern Building Corp. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1942 · confidence medium
“A Government contract should be interpreted as are contracts between individuals, with the view of ascertaining the intention of the parties and to give it effect accordingly, if that can be done consistently with the terms of the instrument.” Hallerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165, 171, 172 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stapleton Construction Co. ex rel. Thos. G. Sperling & Co. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1940 · confidence medium
Cls. 100 ; United States v. Spearin, 248 U. S. 132 , and Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165, 171, 172 .
discussed Cited "see" Campus Sq., LLC v. North-Ellicott Mgt., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Both stand upon equality before the law and [t]he rules of construction which apply between persons apply to the State" ( Village Nursing Home v Axelrod , 146 AD2d 382, 392 [1st Dept 1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hollerbach v United States , 233 US 165, 171-172 [1914]; People ex rel.
examined Cited "see" MasTec North America, Inc. and Mastec, Inc. v. El Paso Field Services, L.P. and Gulfterra South Texas, L.P. F/N/A El Paso South Texas, L.P. (8×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach , 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S. Ct. at 556 . (“In its positive assertion of the nature of this much of the work it made a representation upon which the claimants had a right to rely without an investigation to prove its falsity.”).
examined Cited "see" Mastec North America, Inc. v. El Paso Field Services, L.P. (18×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach, 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S.Ct. at 556 . ("In its positive assertion of the nature of this much of the work it made a representation upon which the claimants had a right to rely without an investigation to prove its falsity.").
examined Cited "see" MasTec North America, Inc. and Mastec, Inc. v. El Paso Field Services, L.P. and Gulfterra South Texas, L.P. F/N/A El Paso South Texas, L.P. (3×)
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach , 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S. Ct. at 556 . (“In its positive assertion of the nature of this much of the work it made a representation upon which the claimants had a right to rely without an investigation to prove its falsity.”).
examined Cited "see" International Technology Corp. v. Winter (3×)
Fed. Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 172 , 49 Ct.Cl. 686 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914).
examined Cited "see" Scott Timber Co. v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Mot. for Recons, at 5 (citing Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 172 , 49 Ct.Cl. 686 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914) (misstatement as to dam materials); Everett Plywood & Door Corp. v. United States, 190 Ct.Cl. 80, 92 , 419 F.2d 425 (1969) (misstatement as to quantity of timber); and Chris Berg, Inc. v. United States, 186 Ct.Cl. 389, 397 , 404 F.2d 364 (1968) (misstatement as to prospective weather conditions)).
examined Cited "see" Lawson v. Fleet Bank of Maine (3×)
D. Me. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 171 , 34 S.Ct. 553, 555 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914); United States v. Seckinger, 397 U.S. 203, 212 , 90 S.Ct. 880, 885 , 25 L.Ed.2d 224 (1970).
cited Cited "see" Raymond International, Inc. v. Baltimore County
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Stage Co., 199 U.S. 414, 424 . [233 U.S at 172, 34 S. Ct. at 556 .] 1 Appellant also cites Robert E.
examined Cited "see" Thorn Construction Co. v. Utah Department of Transportation (6×)
Utah · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914); E.
discussed Cited "see" Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Company v. Williams-Mcwilliams Company, in Personam, Defendants-Third-Party v. United States of America, Third-Party (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach v. United States, supra, 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S.Ct. at 556 .
examined Cited "see" Maurice Mandel, Inc. v. United States (3×)
8th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 172 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914).
discussed Cited "see" Ambrose-Augusterfer Corporation v. The United States (2×)
Ct. Cl. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach v. United States, supra, 233 U.S. at 172 , 34 S.Ct. 553 .
discussed Cited "see" Eastern Service Management Co. v. United States (2×)
E.D.S.C. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See for example, Hol lerbach v. United States, 238 U.S. 165, 172 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 ; Freund v. United States, 260 U.S. 60 , 43 S.Ct. 70 , 67 L.Ed. 131 ; United States v. L.
examined Cited "see" City of Reading v. Rae (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1939 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 ; Christie v. United States, 237 U.S. 234 , 35 S.Ct. 565 , 59 L.Ed. 933 ; United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co., 253 U.S.. 1, 40 S.Ct. 423 , 64 L.Ed. 735 ; Passaic Valley Sewerage Com’rs v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., 3 Cir., 6 F.2d 721 , and Passaic Valley Sewerage Com’rs v. Tierney, 3 Cir., 1 F.2d 304 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Christopher Glass and Aluminum, Inc v. Tishman Construction Corporation of Illinois
Ill. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hollerbach v. U.S., 233 U.S. 165, 172 (1914) (“If the government wished to leave the matter open to the independent - 27 - 1-19-1972) 1-19-2038)Cons. investigation of the claimants, it might easily have omitted the specification as to the character of the filling back of the dam.”). ¶ 71 On appeal Tishman added the argument that although the trial court found CGA’s representations about the USA 4500 system were not actionable false statements the court did not provide a “rationale for disregarding CGA’s express representations about the characteristics of the system it wa…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Metcalf Construction Company v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cir. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
For that reason, even requirements for pre-bid inspection by the contractor have been interpreted cautiously regarding conditions that are hard to identify accurately before work begins, so that “the duty to make an inspection of the site does not negate the changed conditions clause by putting the contractor at peril to discover hidden subsurface conditions or those beyond the limits of an inspection appropriate to the time available.” Foster, 435 F.2d at 888 ; see also, e.g., Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 170-71 , 49 Ct.Cl. 686 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Baldi Bros. Constructors v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Conversely, “the Government is liable for damage attributable to misstatements of fact (in a contract or specifications) which are representations made to the contractor.” Flippin, 312 F.2d at 413 ; see also Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 , 49 Ct.Cl. 686 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914); United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 , 54 Ct.Cl. 187 , 39 S.Ct. 59 , 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918); Railroad Waterproofing Corp. v. United States, 133 Ct.Cl. 911 , 137 F.Supp. 713 (1956).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Pressman v. Wolf (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 , 49 Ct.Cl. 686 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914); Bystra v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, 82 Fla. 472 , 90 So. 478 (1921).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Thompson Ramo Wooldridge Inc. v. The United States (3×)
Ct. Cl. · 1966 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914) 15 The AGP article, taken together with the Schedule clause, was essentially a representation of the existence of a fact, i. e., that, on the whole, the microfilm was fit for its intended purpose.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Flippin Materials Company, a Joint Venture Composed of Brown and Root, Inc., a Corporation v. The United States (3×)
Ct. Cl. · 1963 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 , 34 S.Ct. 553 , 58 L.Ed. 898 (1914); Christie v. United States, 237 U.S. 234 , 35 S.Ct. 565 , 59 L.Ed. 933 (1915); United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 136 , 39 S.Ct. 59 , 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918); United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co., 253 U.S. 1 , 40 S.Ct. 423 , 64 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Flippin Materials Co. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1963 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165 (1914) Christie v. United States, 237 U.S. 234 (1915); United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 136 (1918) ; United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co., 253 U.S. 1 (1920); United States v. Smith, 256 U.S. 11 (1921); Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co. v. United States, 65 Ct. Cl. 567 (1928); Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States, 73 Ct. Cl. 566, 573-74 (1932) ; Arcole Midwest Corp. v. United States, 125 Ct. Cl. 818 , 113 F. Supp. 278 (1953); Potashnick v. United States, 123 Ct. Cl. 197 , 105 F. Supp. 837 (1952); Railroad Waterproofing Corp. v. Uni…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hollerbach
v.
United States
250.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 6, 1914.
233 U.S. 165
Mr. William B. King, with whom Mr. George A. King and Mr. William E. Harvey were on the brief, for appellants:, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Thompson for the United • States,, submitted:
Day.
Cited by 260 opinions  |  Published
[*167] Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought to recover upon a contract between the appellants, doing business as Hollerbach & May, and the United States for the repair of Dam No. 1, Green River, Kentucky. In the aspect in which it is now presented the question involved concerns the right of the claimants to recover because of certain damages alleged to have, been suffered by them which would not have accrued had the dam been backed, with broken stone, sawdust and sediment, as was stated in paragraph 33 of the specifications .attached to the contract.

The determination of this controversy requires reference to certain parts of the contract and the findings of the Court of Claims., The specifications provide, among other things:

“20. It is understood and agreed that the quantities given are approximate only, and that no claim shall be made against the United States on account.of any excess or deficiency, absolute or relative, in the same. Bidders, or their authorized agents, are expected to examine the maps and drawings in this office, which are open to their inspection, to visit the locality of the work, and to make their own estimates of the facilities and difficulties attending the execution of the proposed contract, including local conditions, uncertainty of weather, and all other contingencies.

•j. «‡* 4|« l|*

“33. Work to be done. . . . The present dam, a wooden crib structure, is 528 feet long between abutments and about 52 feet wide at its base. The expected depth of concrete work is shown on the blue prints, but it may be made greater, as the condition of the old timber may render it necessary. The work shall be carried out in sections, generally from 50 to 100 feet long, and no more of the old work shall be torn out than can be rebuilt in a few days in[*168] case of necessity. All the exterior surfaces of the concrete shall be faced with the facing described in paragraph 59, which shall be placed before the concrete below has set, and shall be smoothly finished off. The dam is now backed for about 50 feet with broken stone, sawdust, and sediment to a height of within 2 or 3 feet of the crest, and it is expected that a cofferdam can be constructed with this stone, after which it can be backed with sawdust or other material. The excavation behind the dam will be required to go to the bottom, and it is thought that a slope of 1 horizontal to. 1.2 vertical will give ample room.

*1» *2» •!. «2* *2* 'p

7f« 5J» v v V

“60. Blueprints, Blueprint drawings showing the method of construction may be seen at this office; they shall form a part of these specifications and shall not be departed from except as may be found necessary by the condition of the old timber encountered.

“70. Investigation. It is expected that each bidder will visit the site of this work, the office of the lockmaster, and the office of the local engineer and ascertain the nature of the work, the general character of the river as to floods and low water, and obtain the information necessary to enable him to make an intelligent proposal.”

The Court of Claims found as a matter of fact, among other things:

“As the contractors proceeded with the work of removing the material behind the dam it was found that said dam was not backed with broken stone, sawdust, and sediment as stated in paragraph 33 of the specifications, but that said backing was composed of a soft slushy sediment from a height of about 2 feet from the crest to an average depth of 7 feet, and below that to the bottom of the required excavation said dam was backed by cribwork of an average height of 4.3 feet consisting of sound logs filled with stones.” (47 Ct. Cls. p. 238.)

[*169] The Court of Claims refused to enter judgment for the damages suffered by reason of the difference in the backing of the dam as found by the court, but estimated the damages for the matters in dispute in that respect to aggregate $6,549.23 (47 Ct. Cls. 236).

In the course of.its opinion the court below said that if paragraph 33 stood alone it would be a warranty of the material backing the dam. “It was,” said the court, “a positive, and material representation as to a condition presumably within the knowledge of the Government, and upon which, in the absence of any other provision or warranty the plaintiffs had a right to rely.” But the court held that the cautionary provisions of paragraphs 20 and 70 required the claimants to inform themselves of the condition of the backing of the dam and that when those paragraphs were read with paragraph 33 the statements and representations of the last named paragraph could not be regarded as a warranty upon which the claimants had the right to rely, and the court reached this conclusion upon the authority of certain cases of its own and Simpson v. United States, 172 U. S. 372.

In Simpson v. United States, supra, suit was brought upon a contract for the construction of a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. It was discovered that the foundations upon which the dry dock rested contained quicksands which were unknown and which were not shown in the drawings and plans inspected by the contractors before the making of the contract and upon the strength of which the contractors had made their bid. This court held that the written contract merged all previous negotiations and must be presumed in law to express the final understanding of the parties. Of the contract itself the court said that it was clear that there was nothing in its terms which supported, even by remote implication, the premise upon which the claimants rested their right of recovery; that the contract contained no statement or[*170] agreement or even intimation of a warranty, express or implied, concerning the character of the underlying soil at the place where the dock was to be built; that the only word in the contract which supported the contention of warranty was that the dock was to be built in the navy yard upon a site which was “available,” and that the word “available” did not warrant against the quicksands which were found, and it certainly did appear that the site was available for the dock was constructed upon it. It is therefore apparent that this case is entirely different from the one now under consideration, in the contents of the contract and specifications made part thereof, and that in the Simpson Case the claimants relied upon previous negotiations and information as to the site for the dock, developed in the plans showing-the result of an examination made by Government officers upon a portion of the yard, and did not depend, as here, upon the terms of the contract.

In this case the claimants rely upon the contract, read in the light of the findings of the Court of Claims. Turning to paragraphs 20 and 70 the Court of Claims justified its conclusion in that part of paragraph 20 which provides that “quantities given are approximate only, and that no claim shall be made against the United States on account of any excess or deficiency, absolute or relative, in the' same. Bidders, or their authorized agents, are expected ... to visit the locality of the work, and to make their own estimates,” etc.; and in that part of paragraph 70 which reads, “it is expected that each bidder will visit the site of this work, . . . and ascertain the nature of the work,” etc. The term “quantities” as used in paragraph 20 may doubtless refer to estimates of the amount of different kinds, of work which are specified in the contract. We do not see -how it could control the statement of paragraph 33, definitely made, as to the character of the material back of the dam. Pertinent parts of the paragraphs[*171] referred to would seem to be those which required bidders, or their authorized agents to investigate for themselves and to visit the locality of the work to ascertain its nature and make their own estimates thereof. The specifications attached to the contract set forth the work to be performed in great detail, as to its nature and character, and many particulars as to manner and extent of the work to be done, the removal of old timber and material, etc., the general character of the river as to floods, and low water, etc., and the difficulties attending the execution of the contract, and as to all these things the bidder was required by paragraphs 20 and 70 to make examination for himself and at his own peril.

In paragraph 33 the Government sets forth with particularity a description of the old dam, its length and width, and it was there added: “The dam is now backed for about 50 feet with broken stone, sawdust and sediment to a height of within 2 or 3 feet of the crest,’ ’ etc. The specifications provided that the excavations behind the dam must be to the bottom. ' In the light of this specification, turn to the finding of fact, and we learn that the claimants, as they proceeded with the work, found that the dam “was not backed with broken stone, sawdust and sediment as stated in paragraph 33 of the specifications, ” and below seven feet from the top to the bottom there was a backing of cribbing of an average height of 4.3 feet of sound logs filled with stone. Obviously, this made it much more expensive to do the work than if the representation inserted by the Government in the specifications of its own preparation had been true and only the character of material had been found which the specification unequivocally asserted was there.

A Government contract should be interpreted as are contracts between individuals, with a view to ascertaining the intention of the parties and to give it effect accordingly, if that can be done consistently with the terms[*172] of the instrument. In paragraph 33 the specifications spoke with certainty as to a part of the conditions to be encountered by the claimants. True the claimants might have penetrated the seven feet of soft slushy sediment by means which would have discovered the log crib work filled with stones which was concealed below, but the specifications assured them of the character of the material, a matter concerning which the Government might be presumed to speak with knowledge and authority. We think this positive statement of the specifications must be taken as true and binding upon the Government, and that upon it rather than upon the claimants must fall the loss resulting from such mistaken representations. We think it would be going quite too far to interpret the general language of the other paragraphs as requiring independent investigation of facts which the specifications furnished by the Government as a basis of the contract left in no doubt. If the Government wished to leave the matter open to the independent investigation of the claimant's it might easily have omitted the specification as to the character of the filling- back of the dam. In its positive assertion of the nature of this much of the work it made a representation upon which the claimants had a right to rely without an investigation to prove its falsity. See United States v. Stage Co., 199 U. S. 414, 424.

It follows that the judgment of .the Court of Claims must be reversed and the case remanded to that court with directions to enter judgment for the claimants for the damages incurred because of the different character of material found behind the dam than that described in the specifications.

Reversed.