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-
« PreviousContinue » |