Volume 55 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporter's statement of the case: In Danolds v. United States, 5 C. Cls., 65, this court carefully considered the question of… Held: “After thus leading the claimant to understand that he had complied with all the terms and requirements of his contract, the defendants could not afterwards legally claim a reduction in price for underweight when it was too late for him to remedy the matter, even if he would have been obliged to do so at the time of delivery.” In…

The Reporter’’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On the 8th day of July, 1915, the plaintiff, a corporation, entered into a contract with the United States, acting by and through A. L. Flint, acting general purchasing officer of the Panama Canal, for the delivery to the Panama Canal, on the dock at Colon, in such quantities as might from time to time be ordered, of approximately “ 300,000 pounds waste, cotton, colored,…

The Reporter's statement of the case: It affirmatively appears that no damage was sustained by the United States. A provision to liquidate damages equitably, at least, requires that there should be some damage to liquidate. The case of Bethlehem Steel Go. v. United States, 205 U. S., 105, holds that proof of damage is not required where there is a provision for liquidated damages, but in that case evidence was admitted there from which it appeared that there was damage.

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: No mutual or alleged mistake existed in respect of the location of the plaintiff’s railroad station, the post office, the route or the distance actually traveled by plaintiff’s mail messenger between the station and the post office at Warren, Ind., from February 1, 1905, to the time when said route was changed and the distance increased to more than 80 rods in the fall of 1909.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kentucky, operating a system of railroads in the States of Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

<p> On Defendants’ Motion to Clarify the Record. </p> <p>Motions; stipulations. — Where the defendants have stipulated a large mass of papers into the record, including much irrelevant matter, the defendants at the time having in mind to benefit by portions of the same, the court will not strike from the record such testimony to relieve the defendants of a situation in which they have voluntarily placed themselves, but will require the plaintiff and defendants to make abstracts of, and file, such portions of said record as they intend to use at the trial of the case.</p>

<p> In re Motion of Attorney to Prosecute. </p> <p>Attorneys; Officers’ Reserve Corps. — An attorney holding a commission in the Officers’ Reserve Corps, and on inactive status therein, is not barred from prosecuting a claim in this court by section 5498 of the Revised Statutes.</p>

<p> On Plaintiffs Motions to Set Aside Orders. </p> <p>Consolidation of cases. — Pending cases may be consolidated only by order of the court, as provided by section 921, Revised Statutes, and such consolidation is discretionary with the court, so far as any right to demand it is concerned.</p> <p>Same; appeals. — The court will not consolidate causes which are separately not appealable in order to create a consolidated case with an amount in controversy sufficiently large to authorize an appeal and thereby defeat the purpose of the statute.</p>

The Reporter's statement of tlie case: The grounds for plaintiff’s motion are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court:

<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: The general proposition of law is well established that a subcontractor cannot pass by his immediate employer and sue the principal or proprietor of the property… Held: that the damage sustained by the claimant was the same as the damage sustained by the subcontractor. Judgment for the claimant.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The decision of the engineers as to classification was binding, in the absence of fraud, or such gross… Held: “Where a contract provides that in case of annulment the contractors shall be charged with extra expense, the provision embraces all expenses which would not have been incurred by the defendants if the contractors had complied with their contract.” The expense of this larger bond was one of the expenses which would not have been…

The Reporter's statement of the case: The question presented by the facts in this case is, Was there a breach on the part of the Government of the contract with plaintiff; and if so, what is the measure of damages? This question has been before the court frequently, and it is submitted that the decisions made thereon fully support plaintiff’s contention.

The Reporter's statement oí tbe case: These cases are not consolidated, but were submitted together, and since many of the detailed findings are applicable to the general situation and to all cases the findings are made in the form indicated.

The Beporter's statement of the case: Plaintiff has sought to make it appear that the United States by not making payments within a few days after the first of each month created a financial situation in his affairs which made it impossible for him to perform. The evidence in this case, however, does not warrant - such a conclusion.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The grounds on which this claim is asserted are: 1. The removal was illegal and void because not made upon charges and an opportunity to answer. 2. It was also void because it was not made by proper authority, the Postmaster General, but only by a postmaster. 3.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The allegations of the petition to which defendants demur are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject of misrepresentation have substantially placed the law on .that subject on a new basis. HoTlerbach v. United States, 23B U. S., 165; Christie et al. v. United States, 237 U. S., 234.

The Reporter's statement of the case: This case was heretofore decided (58 C. Cls., 463), and upon appeal to the Supreme Court an order was made remanding the case to this court. On October 27, 1919, this court set aside its former judgment with leave to the parties to take further proof.

The Reporter's statement of the case: This suit is for the recovery of the sum paid to the plaintiff by the defendant but afterwards deducted over plaintiff’s protest from other moneys due the plaintiff under another contract with the defendant on the ground that at the time said payment was made there was no appropriation available from which it could be legally paid, and said suit is also for the recovery of a sum for blasting rock which the plaintiff was not allowed to…

The Reporter's statement of the case: This case having been remanded by the Supreme Court for additional findings of fact by an order dated June 2, 1919, the court makes the following finding, marked II, in addition to and in amplification of the original Finding II: II.

The Reporterstatement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. At all times mentioned herein and until March 5, 1915, William Sylvester Eames and Thomas Crane Young were members of a partnership known by the firm name of Eames & Young, with offices in the city of St. Louis, and State of Missouri, engaged in business as architects.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On or about February 11, 1852, the plaintiffs’ decedent, William E. Woodbridge, filed in the United States Patent Office an application for letters patent for an improvement in rifled ordnance, said application being accompanied by the fee required by law for the granting of a patent.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: Abraham Wolff, a loyal citizen of the United States and of the State of New Jersey, residing at Morristown, Morris County, N. J., died on October 1, 1900, leaving a valid last will and testament, which was, on November 7, 1900, duly admitted to probate in the Orphans’ Court of -said county and State, a court of competent jurisdiction, and of which Otto H. Kahn and Henri P.…

The Reporter's statement of the case: The contractor was allowed extensions of time for changes in the contract which were sufficient to cover any delay in this connection. The Government, under the contract, reserved the right to make changes and modifications in the contract, and in so doing, allowing the contractor an extension of time to cover any delay in this connection, did not waive its right to liquidated damages.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On May 26,1900, Edward J. Hingston and Olaf R. Pihl entered into a contract with the United States, approved June 8, 1900, by the Chief of Engineers, to furnish materials and to build a cofferdam, foundation, piers, and abutment for part of a movable dam, to erect Chanoine wickets, and to build a guide crib at Herr Island Lock and Dam, Allegheny River, Pa., and to perform…

The Ref otter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah and owns and operates, and at the times hereinafter specified owned and operated, a line of railroad extending from Salt Lake City, Utah, to the Bay of San Pedro, Calif., together with branch lines and extensions, over which lines and branches pffaintiff is now, and at the times…

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The allegations of the petition to which defendants demur are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The act of August 24, 1912, section 8, 37 Stat., 557-559, brought within the definition of fourth-class mail matter a large amount of matter of a character which had theretofore been carried only by express companies, and increased the limit of weight of fourth-class matter from 4 to 11 pounds and empowered the Postmaster General still further to increase the weight. It also made a material reduction in the rates of postage.

The BeportePs statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff, William F. Arant, was duly appointed and qualified as superintendent of the Crater Lake National Park, in Oregon, on the 26th day of September, 1902. The salary of the office was then $900 per annum, and it was increased to the sum of $1,000 per annum, effective July 1, 1903.

The Ref or lev’s statement of the case: The question for decision in this case is: Is the United States liable as a matter of law for the cost of transporting the private mounts of officers changing… Held: “A practical knowledge of the action of any one of the great departments of the Government must convince every person that the head of a department, in the distribution of its duties and responsibilities, is often compelled to exercise his 'discretion.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On October 14, 1903, the plaintiff, William H. Taylor, a citizen of the State of New Jersey, entered into a contract with Lieut.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly created and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business in the city of New York; and it has at all times borne true faith and allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way aided or abetted or given encouragement to rebellion against said Government. II.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff, Alexander S. Wadsworth, jr., was appointed a naval cadet (title now changed to midshipman) September 22, 1900, and has served continuously in the United States Navy on active duty since that date.

The RefortePs statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has never given aid or encouragement to rebellion against said Government. II.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff was duly and legally commissioned Assistant Paymaster General with rank as colonel in the United States Army by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on April 26, 1912.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiff is. the receiver, duly appointed, qualified, and acting, of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Eailway Co., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kansas, which for many years both prior and subsequent to July 1, 1906, had been engaged in the transportation of the mails under agreements, closed every four years, as hereinafter stated, with the…

The BeportePs statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. During the period involved in this suit the plaintiff, the Union Trust Co. of Indianapolis, Ind., was a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Indiana.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The allegations of the petition to which defendants demur are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The allegations of the petition to which defendants demur are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The only point in controversy in the case at bar is, was the claim filed in the Treasury Department February 18, 1916, barred by the limitations contained in the act of July 27, 1912?

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court : I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada, and as such is engaged in the business of towing and wrecking on the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, including Lake Erie in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio. II.

The Reporter’’s statement of the case: The following opinion was rendered by the court after a hearing upon the question of jurisdiction in the matter, of transmittal of the claim by the Secretary of War under the •provisions of section 148 of the Judicial Code.

The Reporter's statement of the case: The allegations of the petition to which defendants’ demur are in substance as follows: The petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of West Virginia in the year 18T5, having its principal office at Wheeling in said State.

The Reporter's statement of the case; The allegations of the petition to which defendants demur are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiff, the El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Co., is a corporation of the 'State of Arizona, and is now, and was at the times hereinafter referred to, a common carrier by railroad engaged in the transportation for hire of passengers and property, between the points hereinafter mentioned, in conjunction with the Southern Pacific Co. as connecting carrier.

The Reporters statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge over the Mississippi River, between Keokuk, Iowa, and Hamilton, Ill., was built and put in operation in the years 1869 and 1870 under authority granted by the laws of the States of Illinois and Iowa and an act of Congress approved July 25, 1866, 14 Stat., 244.

<p> On Defendants'1 Motion for New Trial. </p> <p>Neio trial, motion for, under section 115, Judicial Code. — Where the record in a former trial between the same parties, upon which a motion for a new trial under section 175, Judicial Code, is based, does not show that fraud, wrong, or injustice has been done the United States, the burden of proving which is upon the defendants, the court will not grant a new trial.</p>

<p>Motion to dismiss; demurrer; rules of court. — A motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that plaintiff’s evidence does not establish liability if, in effect, a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, is not a proper motion to file in the Court of Claims, which sits as both court and jury and is governed by the rules of the Supreme Court requiring the court to file findings of fact at or before the entry of their judgments, and whose trials are analogous to those in a court of chancery.</p> <p>Loyalty of plaintiff under section 160, Judicial Code. — Where the loyalty of a plaintiff has been alleged in a petition as required by section 159, Judicial Code, and it comes to the Knowledge of the court that there is doubt as to whether plaintiff has always borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, the court will not hear the case upon its merits until the question of plaintiff’s loyalty has been settled.</p>

<p> On Defendants' Motion for New Trial. </p> <p>New trial, motion for under section 175, Judicial Code. — Where facts materially affecting the issues in a case were unknown to the Attorney General or his assistant in charge at the trial thereof, it is good ground for the allowance of a motion to take testimony as to such facts under the rules of the court allowing new ’trials for after-discovered evidence.</p> <p>fíame. — Where there are facts in the record which would vitally alter the findings of fact and which have not been brought to the attention of the court either in oral argument or by requests for findings at the trial thereof, the court will of its motion, upon the discovery of such facts, make the proper correction of its findings of fact.</p>

The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff, Thomas Brooke Price, was enrolled in the United States Naval Reserve Force August 3, 1917, as seaman second class, at the navy yard, Washington, D. C. He was promoted to the rank of ensign October 5, 1917, while holding the rating of seaman second class, and executed oath and acceptance of office of ensign in the Naval Coast Defense Reserve October 5, 1917.