JAMES CARLISLE BASKIN v. THE UNITED
[95 C. Cls. 455; 316 U. S. -]
Right to sue for salary where employment was terminated on charges.
Decided January 5, 1942; petition dismissed. Ante, p.
Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court April 27, 1942.
ACCEPTANCE OF BID. See Contract XXX.
ACCOUNT STATED.
See Taxes II, III.
ACT OF FEBRUARY 16, 1863. See Indian Claims XX.
ACT OF JULY 15, 1870.
See Indian Claims XXI, XXII.
ACT OF JANUARY 12, 1923. See Pay and Allowances II.
ACT OF JUNE 25, 1936.
See Pay and Allowances VI.
ACT OF JUNE 9, 1937.
See Pay and Allowances V, VII.
ADDITIONAL WORK.
See Contracts XII.
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION. See Pay and Allowances XV. ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
See Contracts VII.
AFFILIATED GROUP.
See Taxes I, II, III.
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.
I. Where, under a Marketing Agreement between plaintiff, a nonprofit organization, and its mem- bers, on the one hand, and on the other, the United States, acting through the Secretary of Agricul- ture, for the disposal of the wheat surplus in 1933, entered into in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the plaintiff, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture, as required by said act, sold certain shipments of flour to the United States Government, packed and sealed for shipment to and for use in the Philippine Islands; and where all the transactions by the plaintiff with the Government, in connec- tion with which the instant claim arose, were pro- posed and carried out by plaintiff and its members concerned with the knowledge and consent of the Secretary of Agriculture through his authorized representatives; it is held that said sale comes
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, XXIII.
ALLOTMENTS TO FREEDMEN.
See Indian Claims XII, XIII, XIV, XV.
ALTERNATIVE CLAIM.
See Indian Claims IX.
AMORTIZATION.
See Taxes IX.
ANTICIPATION.
See Patents XVI, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXI.
ARMY OFFICER, PROPERTY OF.
I. Where a commissioned officer in the Regular Army of the United States was retired for disability inci- dent to the service; and where under proper orders he was relieved from assignment and duty at his then post and directed to proceed to his home;
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
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.
AUTOMOBILE ACCESSORIES.
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.
See Pay and Allowances III.
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
See Dredging Of Navigable Channel I, IV; Taking Of Private Property I, II, III.
CONTRACTING OFFICER.
See Contracts XIV, XIX.
CONTRACTS.
I. Under the facts disclosed by the record, the provi- sions of plaintiff's contract, the representations of the defendant's contracting officer as to the period during which the general construction work would be performed, and the statements and representations in the specifications and drawings relating to all work upon the entire project, upon all of which plaintiff had a right to rely, and did rely, in making its bid for furnishing and installing plumbing, heating, and ventilating equipment at the Veterans' Administration Hospital Building at Togus, Maine; it is held that plaintiff is entitled to
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 U. S. 156, cited. Id.
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.
« PrejšnjaNaprej » |