« PreviousContinue »
105 C. Cls.
Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 8, 1945. Petitions for rehearing denied.
THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. HENRY
[104 C. Cls. 397; 327 U. S. —] Government contract; delay in furnishing drawings; damages; overhead; idle machinery; heat, etc.
Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari denied March 4, 1946.
CHERRY COTTON MILLS, INC., PETITIONER, v.
THE UNITED STATES
[103 C. Cls. 243; 327 U. S. — ]
On writ of certiorari (326 U. S. 705) to review a judgment of the Court of Claims holding that where the plaintiff was admittedly indebted to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a Government agency, for a balance due on the corporation's participation in a bank loan to plaintiff; and where the Government was admittedly indebted to the plaintiff for refund of processing and floor stock taxes paid by it under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the amount due to the plaintiff for such refund was properly set off against the balance due by the plaintiff to the corporation.
The judgment of the Court of Claims was affirmed by the Supreme Court March 25, 1946.
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court, holding:
1. The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear and determine counterclaims on the part of the Government against any claimant is not dependent upon the preliminary intergovernmental steps which precede court action.
2. Where plaintiff's indebtedness to Reconstruction Finance Corporation exceeded the Government's in
debtedness to plaintiff for taxes illegally collected; and where plaintiff brought action in the Court of Claims to recover the taxes paid, after the General Accounting Office had directed the treasury to pay the tax refund to the RFC instead of to plaintiff ; jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear and determine the Government's counterclaim based on plaintiff's indebtedness to RFC was not dependent upon whether the Comptroller General exceeded his authority in so directing the payment of the tax refund.
3. The purpose of the statute (28 U. S. Code 250) giving the Court of Claims jurisdiction to hear and determine all set-offs and counterclaims or other demands. on the part of the Government against any claimant was to permit the Government to have adjudicated in one suit all controversies between it and those granted permission to sue it, whether the Government's interest had been entrusted to its agencies of one kind or another.
4. An indebtedness owing by the plaintiff to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a claim or “demand on the part of the Government” against plaintiff which the Government could set up as a counterclaim in the Court of Claims, under the statute, in an action by plaintiff to recover an indebtedness owing by the Government for taxes illegally collected.
See Contracts XI.
See Contracts I.
See Taxes XI, XII.
See Contracts XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX.
See Contracts XV, XIX, XX, XLII, LII.
See Suit for Salary II, IV, V, VI, VII.
I. The provision (28 U. S. C. 262) that a petition on
a claim must be filed “within six years after
Hubard, Receiver, 395.
the date at which the claim first accrues under
the statute. Myers Co., 459
accrues when it can be definitely ascertained
neglect to perform. Id.
See Taxes V.
See Rule 46 I, II.
See Taxes V, VI, VII, VIII.
105 C. Als.
See Contracts XVII.
I. Where contractor on Government contract was
delayed by a strike on another contract job; and
Manufacturers' Casualty Insurance Co., 342.
but the project engineer advised that he had no
I. Where it was provided in the contract in suit
(Article 15) that all disputes, except as to labor