Summary

Portrait of Robert Cooper Grier Robert Cooper Grier Irwin v. United States — Opinion of the Court

That there is no ambiguity which would authorize an appeal to the acts of the parties themselves for the purpose of giving a construction to their contract. In the case even of a patent ambiguity the deed must speak for itself. It is not pretended that there is any which is latent, and which parol evidence might therefore raise and remove.
2d. That the evidence shows that the factory never went into operation after the purchase by the United States, and no inference is therefore to be drawn to the prejudice of the defendant from the acquiescence of the grantors.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Robert Cooper Grier Robert Cooper Grier Irwin v. United States — Opinion of the Court

It is a part of the case, however, that a tube or pipe leading to the arsenal of the complainants, of equal diameter with that used to convey the water to the factory of the grantors, will not deliver more than a fractional part of the water conveyed by the latter; and that this is the result of a law of hydraulics which every man, and certainly every agent of the government, is bound to know.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Robert Cooper Grier Robert Cooper Grier Irwin v. United States — Opinion of the Court

We are entitled to it at all times. We are not to be put off with a mere average-a principle which would authorize the government to take the whole of the water for one half the year, provided it allowed us the whole for the other.
But there is another violation of the contract-supposing even the construction of the court to be the correct one-in the position of the copper adjutage, as well as in the level and inclination of the distributing pipes. The deed provides that the complainants' pipe shall be upon the same level with that which shall convey the water to the factory of the grantors.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature