Ackerlind v. United States

Background

A private contractor agreed to carry coal from U.S. ports to Manila Bay for the Government. The Bureau of Equipment set the terms and sent a paper requisition to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts to prepare a formal contract. A printed clause about giving twenty‑four hours’ notice before lay days was supposed to be omitted after the contractor objected, but a clerk’s error left it in the written requisition. The contractor signed the written form on March 2, 1905, without careful reading. The mistake was discovered when vessels arrived at Cavite on June 17, 1905, and the Supplies Bureau notified the contractor of the omission on June 23, but the Government refused to accept that change and the Court of Claims denied reformation.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the written contract could be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed. The Court explained the Government’s agencies had made the bargain and a clerk’s error in the written form did not prevent correcting the writing to reflect the real agreement. The Court allowed reformation on that point and reversed the Court of Claims’ refusal. On separate money issues the Court affirmed the lower court: the claimant failed to prove that deeper wharf depth generally existed to justify extra demurrage, and the tariff exemption did not apply because it covers vessels under Government control, not independent carriers.

Real world impact

The ruling lets contractors correct clerical mistakes in written Government shipping contracts so the paper matches what was actually agreed. At the same time, carriers cannot get extra unloading pay without proof of dock conditions, and independent commercial vessels cannot claim government vessel tariff exemptions. These outcomes affect contractors carrying coal to Manila Bay and similar Government shipping arrangements.