CASES OF UNIFORM GRATUITY DISMISSED BY THE COURT
OF CLAIMS. SEE PRICE v. UNITED STATES, 55 C. CLS.
499; BANCROFT v. UNITED STATES, 56 C. CLS. 218; 260
U. S. 706; SLAYMAKER v. UNITED STATES, 57 C. CLS. 294;
263 U. S. 94; WITT v. UNITED STATES, 58 C. CLS. 479
D-339. Edmund B. Keating.
ON MARCH 8, 1926, ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. (58 C.
CLS. 727; 59 C. CLS. 985; 60 C. CLS. 1041)
C-144. Rollin N. Harger.
C-273. J. Stewart Gray.
C-560. Lawrence E. Teberg.
C-729. John O. Olson, guardian.
ADJUSTED COMPENSATION ACT.
I. The claim of a beneficiary for adjusted compensation under
the World War adjusted compensation act of May 19,
1924, is a claim for a gratuity within the jurisdiction
of the Court of Claims and is not a claim for a pension.
Singles, 433.
II. Where a World War veteran makes out an application in
due form claiming the benefits of the act of May 19,
1924, and it is not forwarded to the Secretary of War
until after his death, the filing of the application was
not the act of the veteran, the beneficiary named therein
did not become such under the law and can not recover
the benefits thereof. Id.
See Contracts, III.
ALLOCATIONS.
See Contracts, XIII.
APPEALS.
The statute authorizing appeals from the Court of Claims re-
lates to final judgments upon the whole case and not
to an order sustaining a demurrer to a proposed
counterclaim by the Government. Standard Steel Car
Co., 391.
I. A first lieutenant of the Army, assigned to the command
of a battery in the Field Artillery, other than his own,
is entitled to the pay and allowances of a captain under
section 7, act of April 26, 1898, 30 Stat. 364, from the
date he embarked with said battery for a country at
war with the United States and not prior thereto while
said battery was stationed in the United States. Lana-
gan, 504,
II. Training schools; regulation of the President; pay of
See also Adjusted Compensation Act and Army Officer's Mileage.
ASSIGNMENTS.
See Contracts, XLVII, LV; and Patents, I.
See Contracts, I, II, IX, XXIX, XXXVI, XLI, LII, LVIII; Dent
Act, II, III; Jurisdiction, III; and Misrepresentation.
See Proposals and Bids.
83151-26-c c-voL 61-67
The duties of a No. 1 surfman, U. S. Coast Guard, do not cor-
respond to any grade, rating, or length of service in the
Navy, and there was no assimilation of his pay under
the act of May 22, 1917. Cranmer, 405.
COMPROMISE.
See Taxes, II.
CONTRACTS.
I. Where plaintiff submits a proposal to shrink and press
cloth which is accepted by the Government, and no fur-
ther agreement either written or oral is entered into
between said parties, and cloth is furnished to plaintiff
by officers having no authority to contract and after
shrinking and pressing is returned to and paid for by
the Government and the price is afterwards increased,
there is no liability on the Government (1) to pay
plaintiff damages for failure to furnish a greater quan-
tity; (2) to pay plaintiff the difference between the
price originally paid and the increased price; (3) to
reimburse plaintiff for insurance premiums on said
cloth not requested nor approved; (4) to pay
plaintiff for increased facilities. Manhattan Sponging
Works, 25.
II. Where by written contract plaintiff agreed to a maximum
fee of $15,000, "anything in the contract to the contrary
notwithstanding," and an officer without authority con-
strued the contract at the time of its execution to
mean that for work ordered in excess of $200,000
value plaintiff would be paid more than the maximum
fee specified, and the contract did not expressly so
provide, plaintiff is not entitled to more than the maxi-
mum fee specified. Beckstrom Co., 28.
III. Where the Government has a contract with a firm act-
ing as exclusive sales agents of plaintiff's goods, and
specifies in said contract that the goods purchased shall
be of plaintiff's make, the contract between the Gov-
ernment and said firm does not create contractual
relations between plaintiff and the Government. Col-
lier Mfg. Co., 32.
IV. A request by an agent of the Government for informa-
tion as to the price at which plaintiff could furnish
certain articles in excess of the number contracted for,
not followed by an order, a shipment, or a delivery,
does not raise the implication of an agreement to pay
for such additional articles. Channon-Emery Stove
Co., 37.
V. A. contractor is not entitled to any excess over the original
price for additional articles delivered where it has
not complied with the conditions providing for an in-
crease in price, nor is it entitled to damages for the
Government's refusal to award a contract at an in-
creased price for such additional articles. American
Seating Co., 57.
VI. Where a contract for the construction of a vessel pro-
vides that changes may be made in the plans and speci-
fications upon the written order of the Secretary or
Acting Secretary of the Navy alone, and that the actual
cost of such changes, "and the damage, if any, caused
thereby, shall be ascertained, estimated, and determined
by a board of naval officers, appointed by the Secretary
of the Navy," and that the contractor "shall be bound
by the determination of said board, as to the amount of
increased or diminished compensation" he is to receive,
(1) the question as to whether an item of the claim
is or is not a change must be determined by the Secre-
tary; (2) the damage, if any, arising therefrom must be
caused directly by such change and not by delay arising
therefrom; and (3) the decision of the board as to the
amount of increased or diminished compensation can
not be reviewed by the court, except for fraud or error
so gross as to amount to bad faith. Moran Bros. Co.,
73.
VII. Where a contract provides that all delays operating on
the time of completion of a vessel found by the Sec-
retary of the Navy to be properly attributable to the
Government, shall entitle the contractor to a correspond-
ing extension of the contract period, and the Secretary
finds the the Government by the nondelivery of certain
necessary materials or supplies has delayed the com-
pletion of the work for a specified period, and has
granted an extension for said period for causes beyond
the control of the contractor, such extension will relieve
him from the imposition of liquidated damages during
continuance, and entitles him to compensation for dam-
ages arising out of said delays. Id.
VIII. Where a contract provides that doubts or disputes arising
as to the meaning of anything in the drawings, plans,
or specifications shall be referred to the Secretary of the
Navy and the contractor binds himself to abide by his
decision, the decision of the Secretary is final in the
absence of bad faith. Id.
IX. The Government has the right to cancel a contract having
a "thirty-day termination clause," notwithstanding as-
surance by the contracting officer at the time the con-
tract is executed that the said clause will not be in-
voked, and the contractor is bound by the terms of the
said termination clause, its waiver of the thirty-day
notice, and its acceptance of an earlier cancellation.
Vaughan Construction Co., 115.
X. Advice received from the Government as to details of
manufacture, which if ignored might result disastrously
to the contractor and if followed result in the produc-
tion of extra articles for which the Government prom-
ised a ready sale, is not a contract nor a taking of the
contractor's property. Amick, 121.
XI. Where permission is granted plaintiff by a constructing
quartermaster to build a spur over land not owned by
the Government to a military camp, and there is no
request therefor or promise to pay, the plaintiff is not
entitled to reimbursement for any sums expended by it
in partially performing the work. Chicago, Milwaukee
XII. A purchaser of Government supplies, having accepted a
refund of the full purchase price from the United
States on account of the damaged condition of the
goods delivered, has elected to rescind the contract and
may not thereafter sue as for breach. Platt, receiver,
196.
XIII. Where the plaintiff, having at the instance of procure-
ment agencies which promise it orders covering its
entire output, placed its facilities at the disposal of the
United States for the manufacture of shell steel,
receives an allocation of a stated quantity of steel from
technical advisers to said agencies, together with a
statement that the plaintiff is to complete negotiations
with the Ordnance Department, and said Ordnance
Department thereafter advises plaintiff that no contract
will issue, no contract can be implied under the Dent
Act. Donner Steel Co., 209.
XIV. Where no contract has been signed as required by sec-
tion 3744, R. S., and plaintiff has supplied and the
Government accepted and used certain material, plain-
tiff is limited in its recovery to a quantum valebat.
Schepp Co., 219.
XV. Where the plaintiff delivers coal in accordance with an
order of the Secretary of the Navy, the acceptance of
which plaintiff refuses to sign, and said order states
that the price named therein is fixed as advance pay-
|