57 Ct. Cl.
Volume 57 — Court of Claims Reports
66 opinions
- 57 Ct. Cl. 1World Publishing Co. v. United States (1921)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The allegations of the petition, to which defendant demurs, are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 7Robinson v. United States (1921)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case. The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. By an act of Congress, approved March 2, 1899, an appropriation was made for the construction of a United States customhouse in the city of New York, and the Secretary of the Treasury authorized and directed to construct such building.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 26Meyer Scale & Hardware Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: Nothing in the contract contemplated or authorized any change or reduction in the number of scales to be furnished thereunder. In arbitrarily ordering and enforcing a reduction in the number to be made and delivered thereunder, the Government evidently intended, and at any rate its action had that necessary effect, to subject itself to liability for such damages as the law imposes for such unwarranted act.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 60Irby v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff’s decedent, George E. Payne, was a citizen of the State of Louisiana during the Civil War. He was loyal to the United States Government and gave no aid nor comfort to rebellion during said war. II.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 64Bay State Fishing Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff, the Bay State Fishing Company, since before April 18, 1917, has been and now is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, with its principal office at the Boston Fish Pier, in the city of Boston and Commonwealth of Massachusetts. II.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 71Savage Arms Corp. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is, and was during the different transactions set forth in these findings, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York City, and a factory located at Utica, New York, devoted, during the war with ¡Germany, exclusively to the manufacture of Lewis machine guns and spare parts…
- 57 Ct. Cl. 88Boone v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The RefortePs statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. While on duty at the naval training station, as assistant surgeon with rank of lieutenant (junior grade), United States Navy, Norfolk, Ya., the plaintiff received the following order: Navy DefaRtment, Washington, August W, 1915. To: Assistant Surgeon Joel T. Boone, U. S. N., Naval Training Station, Norfolk, Ya.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 94General Chemical Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The allegations of the petition are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 96Herrman v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is, and was during the different transactions hereinafter described, a citizen of the United States, residing in the City of New York and doing business under the firm name of Herrman, Sternbach and Company, importing coat and suit linings, known in the trade as Venetians, from Bradford, England, where such goods were exclusively manufactured, and where he…
- 57 Ct. Cl. 104Twin City Four Wheel Drive Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiff is now, and during all the times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of South Dakota, duly licensed to transact business within the State of Minnesota, having its principal place of business at St. Paul in said State.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 116Stager v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case. The allegations of the petition, to which defendant demurs, are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 120Stanton v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
<p>The Reporter's statement of the case:</p> <p>The plaintiff’s motion to reinstate was overruled, with the following</p>
- 57 Ct. Cl. 123Swisher v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The provisions of law are plain and mandatory in requiring that all laborers and mechanics employed by the United States or its contractors on public work such as that carried on at Nitro be allowed overtime pay for all time employed in excess of eight hours per day. Plaintiff was employed at Nitro far in excess of eight hours per day. Was his employment that of a “laborer or mechanic ” ?
- 57 Ct. Cl. 140Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter''s statement of the case: The following are the facts, of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, is, and was during the transactions hereinafter described, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland, and was the owner of a system of railroads engaged in interstate commerce. II. About September 1, 1917, Lieut.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 151Snare & Triest Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The Snare & Triest Company is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and has its principal office in the city of New York in that State. II.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 160Klebe v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 185Atlantic Contracting Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 197Machinery & Metals Sales Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 200John Thomson Press, & Manufacturing Co v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 220Chicago Cold Storage Warehouse Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The Chicago Cold Storage Warehouse Company is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, conducting the business of cold storage and freezing of meats in the city of Chicago, Illinois.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 232Poole Engineering & Machine Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 238Johnson Lighterage Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 242Anderson v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 244Freygang v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 253Holdridge v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 259Earle C. Anthony (Inc.) v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 268Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 277Illinois Central Railroad v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 284Lancaster v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiffs are the receivers, duly appointed, qualified, and acting, of the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, a corporation duly incorporated under acts of Congress.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 294Slaymaker v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 300Chicago & Alton Railroad v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 323Rider v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 328Baker v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 340American Lithographic Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 357Medawakanton v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 379Morrell v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 395Horton v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 404Garford Motor Truck Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 411Borland v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 419Warren v. United States (1921)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
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 and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and was and is engaged in the business of general contractor, and on October 2, 1918, entered into a wi'itten contract with C. W. Parks, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, Navy Department, representing the United States, whereby it agreed to construct certain emergency…
- 57 Ct. Cl. 424Gay v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 431Missouri Pacific Railroad v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 447Warren, Moore & Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 450Wabash Railway Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 453Delaine Mills Inc. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania with its principal office at Baker and Mallory Streets, Philadelphia. It has borne true faith, and allegiance to the United States. II.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 460Namquit Worsted Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court : 1. The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Rhode Island. Its plant is equipped with forty looms for weaving cloth, scouring and finishing the same, and equipped to manufacture khaki O. D. shirting flannel and melton cloth. It employed an average of about one hundred employees. The plaintiff has borne true allegiance to the United States.
- 57 Ct. Cl. 464Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 497Electric Boat Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 515Graham v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 517Hutchison v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 519Export Oil Corp. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 521Durocher v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 529Parish v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 535Duke v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 546Waite v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 551Cumming v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 566Ferris v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 569Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 576Warren v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 581Newport Contracting & Engineering Co. v. United States (1922)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
- 57 Ct. Cl. 587Frackelton v. United States (1919)U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The application for appeal from the judgment of this court was denied, with the following
- 57 Ct. Cl. 597New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States (1921)
- 57 Ct. Cl. 598Wood v. United States (1921)
- 57 Ct. Cl. 599United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.262 (1921)
- 57 Ct. Cl. 600Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States (1921)
- 57 Ct. Cl. 601Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. United States (1921)