Summary

Joseph McKenna Moore v. United States (196 U.S. 157…

It is manifest that coal on board ships in a harbor is not in the same situation as coal on a wharf. The wharf, under the contract, was the place of destination, and the appellant took the chances, as observed by the court of claims, of obstacles which should intervene to delay the delivery of the coal at the wharf, as they did of other obstacles which might have intervened to prevent the coal reaching the harbor. It was not strictly the coal in the ships that the United States contracted to take.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Moore v. United States (196 U.S. 157…

The wharves at Honolulu are under the control of a harbor master. The practice of such harbor master was to assign ships to berths at the wharves in the order of their respective arrivals, and this practice was followed by him in respect to the ships mentioned. Claimant paid said shipowners for delays $1,433.12 to the Harvester and $744.48 to the General Gordon. All coal delivered was paid for by defendant.
'V. The coal actually delivered under the second contract was 4,634 tons, completed October 7, 1898.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature