« PrejšnjaNaprej »
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT—Continued.
within the provisions of sections 10 (f) and 17 (a)
of the Agricultural Adjustment Act defining ex-
portations of agricultural products to include
exportations to the Philippine Islands, and plain-
tiff is accordingly entitled to recover. North
Pacific Emergency Export, 430.
II. Where plaintiff, a manufacturer of hosiery, filed a
claim for refund of floor stocks tax paid under the
Agricultural Adjustment Act, and where said
claim was rejected by the Commissioner of In-
ternal Revenue on the ground that the claim did
not comply with the requirements of the Revenue
Act of 1936, under which act said claim was filed,
and that said claim did not comply with the
applicable Treasury Regulations under said act;
and where plaintiff in filing its claim or at any
other time did not submit to the Commissioner
any evidence in support of said claim, as required
by the statute and regulations; it is held that, no
proper claim having been filed with the Commis-
sioner in compliance with the statute and per-
tinent regulations, the Court of Claims is without
jurisdiction and plaintiff's petition is accordingly
dismissed. Morristown Knitting Mills, Inc., 552.
III. The requirement that a claim for refund be filed with
the Commissioner before litigation may be insti.
tuted "is a familiar provision of the Revenue
Laws." United States v. Felt & Tarrant Co., 283
U. S. 269, cited; also Factors & Finance Co. v.
United States, 73 C. Cls. 707. Id.
AIRPLANE LANDING MECHANISM.
See Patents XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII,
ALLOTMENTS TO FREEDMEN.
See Indian Claims XII, XIII, XIV, XV.
See Indian Claims IX.
See Taxes IX.
See Patents XVI, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXI.
ARMY OFFICER, PROPERTY OF.
ARMY OFFICE, PROPERTY OF—Continued.
and where in the shipment of his household goods
and other personal property from said post to his
home said household goods and property were
damaged; it is held that plaintiff is entitled to re-
cover under the provisions of section one of the
Act of March 4, 1921 (41 Stat. 1436; U. S. Code,
title 31, section 218). Brabson, 187.
II. An officer acting under military orders is "in the
military service" within the provisions of the Act
of March 4, 1921. Id.
III. In the instant case the plaintiff was traveling “under
orders” and his property was being “transported
by the proper agent or agency of the United States
Government." See Regnier v. The United States,
92 C. Cls. 437. Id.
See Taxes XXIII, XXIV.
CASH AND NOTES AS INCOME.
See Taxes IV, V, VI, VII.
CHANGES IN PLANS.
See Contracts XXIV.
CLAIM TIMELY FILED.
See Taxes VIII.
CLAIM VOLUNTARILY TRANSFERRED.
See Cotton Linters Contract I, II.
"COMMERCE" AND "INDUSTRY."
See Taxes XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS IN STATUTE.
recover $9,349.95 of the total excess cost of $26,-
044.64 incurred by reason of delay due to defend-
ant. Rice and Burton, Receivers, 84.
II. Time was an essence of plaintiff's contract with
defendant, and nowhere in the contract or specifi-
cations for the work covered by said contract nor
in defendant's contract and specifications for con-
struction of the building in which plaintiff was to
perform its work was the defendant relieved of
responsibility for a liability to plaintiff for excess
costs by reason of delay for which plaintiff was in
no way responsible. Wood et al. v. United States,
258 U. S. 120, and similar cases distinguished. Id.
III. The fact that a condition encountered, which causes
delay, is unforeseen or unanticipated does not
render the delay unavoidable and is not enough
to relieve the contracting party, whose contractual
duty it is to overcome it, from responsibility for
damages to the other party from the delay caused
by such conditions. Carnegie Steel Co. v. United
States, 49 C. Cls. 403, affirmed 240 C. S. 156,
IV. Where plaintiff entered into a contract with the
Government to furnish all labor and materials
and to perform all work required for the construc-
tion of a complete steam-generating plant, to be
known as the Central Heating Plant for Public
Buildings, in the District of Columbia; said con-
tract including furnishing and installing all
necessary electrical wiring, as set forth in the
specifications, and for which electrical work plain-
tiff contracted with a subcontractor, which sub-
contractor based its bid on wiring and insulation
approved by the National Electrical Code, as
called for under one paragraph of the original
specifications; and where said original specifica-
tions were carelessly written and contradictory;
and where under amended specifications plaintiff
was required to install, and did install, a more
expensive insulation; it is held by the court that
the ambiguity in the original specifications should
be resolved in plaintiff's favor, and plaintiff is
entitled to recover. Rust Engineering Co., 125.
V. Where the specifications are carelessly written and
ambiguous, contractor is not licensed to disregard
such portions as are plain. Id.
VI. If an owner invites bids for an illegal installation,
the bidder is not privileged to submit a bid, and,
if it is accepted, claim that he has a contract for
a much cheaper lawful installation. Id.
VII. Where defendant, without advertising for bids, as
required by law, contracted with plaintiff for the
manufacture and delivery of airplanes of a certain
type developed at its own expense by plaintiff;
and where plaintiff did manufacture and deliver
such airplanes in accordance with said contract;
and was paid therefor, except, however, for a
deduction withheld by the Comptroller General
purporting to reduce the price of said airplanes
to the audited direct costs of labor and materials
plus 10-percent profit; it is held that the cost of
said airplanes, properly computed, should include
a proportionate part of the cost of developing
such model of airplane, and the plaintiff accord-
ingly is entitled to recover. Douglas Aircraft, 140.
VIII. Where plaintiff in developing a new type of airplane
did not set up on its books development costs,
and where the need for ascertaining and recording
such development costs arose from the failure of
defendant to advertise for bids, as required by
law, before awarding to plaintiff certain contracts
for the particular type of airplane in question; it
is held that plaintiff's claim should not be dis-
missed because of indefiniteness of proof unless
the proof is really so indefinite as to make an
intelligent judgment impossible. Id.
IX. In computing development costs, where no record
of such costs was kept, changes in conditions,
including fluctuations in the cost of labor and
material during the period of development, may
be taken in account. Id.
X. Under a contract entered into by the plaintiff to
furnish all labor and material and perform all
work required for the construction of a movable-
span highway bridge over the branch channel of
the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal at Delaware
City, Del.; it is held that the plaintiff is not
entitled to recover for excess costs and damage
alleged to have resulted from misrepresentations
as to character of material to be encountered in the
performance of the work called for by the contract
nor for alleged extra work nor for liquidated dam-
ages alleged to have been erroneously withheld
by the defendant for delay in completion of the
work. Triest & Earle, Inc., 209.
XI. Where it is shown by the evidence that the conditions
encountered by the plaintiff in excavating for the
east pier were not different from what might
reasonably have been expected from an examina-
tion of the specifications and drawings; and where
it is shown that the information recorded by the
defendant and made available to bidders fairly
represented th nature of the material to be ex-
cavated and the conditions to be encountered;
it is held that the increased cost incurred by the
plaintiff by reason of the difficulties encountered
was due to plaintiff's failure to interpret properly
the data furnished by the defendant and not from
any misrepresentation by the defendant nor
defendant's failure to furnish plaintiff with all the
information had by defendant. Id.
XII. Where in the construction of the west pier additional
work was required by the contracting officer and
plaintiff was granted extra time therefor and was
paid the agreed compensation therefor; it is held
that the proof does not sustain plaintiff's claim
that plaintiff should have been paid more. Id.
XIII. It is shown by the evidence that the decision of the
contracting officer holding plaintiff responsible
for 80 days' delay was correct and liquidated
damages were accordingly properly deducted
therefor in accordance with the terms of the con-
XIV. Where the plaintiff entered into a written contract
with the defendant for performing a certain
amount of earth work on the construction of a
Mississippi River levee, according to specifica-
tions; and where after the work provided for in
the contract had been nearly completed the con-
tracting officer for defendant issued an order for
additional work and stated in the order that "pay-
ment for additional yardage made necessary would
be made at the contract price per yard;" and where
the contract provided that if any changes were
made in the contract an equitable adjustment
should be made, which provision of the contract
was disregarded by the contracting officer; it is