Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE COURT OF

CLAIMS

“(a) Section 177 of the Judicial Code, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

“. Sec. 177. (a) No interest shall be allowed on any claim up to the time of the rendition of judgment by the Court of Claims, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest, except as provided in subdivision (b).

* *(b) In any judgment of any court rendered (whether against the United States, a collector or deputy collector of internal revenue, a former collector or deputy collector, or the personal representative in case of death) for any overpayment in respect of any internal-revenue tax, interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6 per centum per annum upon the amount of the overpayment, from the date of the payment or collection thereof to a date preceding the date of the refund check by not more than thirty days, such date to be determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.'

(6) Subsection (a) of this section shall take effect on the expiration of thirty days after the enactment of this Act.”—Section 615, act of May 29, 1928, 45 Stat. 791, 877.

XLV

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

JUNE 1, 1928, TO (IN PART) FEBRUARY 4, 1929.

J. & J. W. STOLTS ASSOCIATION v. THE UNITED

STATES

[Nos. D-800 and D-801]

On the Proofs

Contract; extra work; quantum meruit; lack of authority in Gou

ernment agent.-In suit to recover from the United States on the basis of quantum meruit for work performed and labor furnished over and above that required by express contract, want of authority in the Government agent to act in the premises precludes recovery.

The Reporter's statement of the case:

Mr. Camden R. McAtee for the plaintiffs. Messrs. Mark Eisner and Irwin M. Berliner, and Mason, Spalding & McAtee were on the brief.

Mr. W. F. Norris, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.

Decided April 2, 1928. Motion for new trial overruled October 8, 1928.

The court made special findings of fact, as follows:

I. The plaintiff is a joint-stock association with corporate powers duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal offices and place of

24646-29—CC VOL 66-41

Reporter's Statement of the Case business in the city. of New York, and is engaged in the business of manufaefariřg and selling caskets and coffins.

II. During the years of 1919 and 1920 the plaintiff entered into three successive contracts with the United States for casketş for the Army overseas dead. The manufacturing specifications in each of the three contracts were essentially : the same.

The first contract, No. 1343–N, was dated December 10, 1919, and was for 6,000 caskets at a unit price of $62.50 each "f. o. b. factory, New York City, N. Y.”

The second contract, No. 1389-N, was dated April 16, 1920, and was for 10,000 caskets at a unit price of $87.50 each deliveries f. o. b. New York."

The third contract, No. 1404–N, was entered into in September of 1920, and was for 12,000 caskets at $106 per casket, deliveries to be made “f. o. b. cars." These contracts as modified by changes of specifications and increases of unit prices were all fully performed and the contract prices specified were fully paid to the plaintiff company.

These two contracts were modified by changes in the specifications and decreases and increases in the unit prices. Contract No. 1343-N was modified by a supplemental contract dated March 4, 1920, decreasing the price by one dollar. This contract was again modified under date of April 26, 1920, by increasing the unit price on 2,000 caskets by $3.85. Contract No. 1389-N was modified by supplemental agreement dated May 6, 1920, increasing the unit price per casket by $7.35.

The plaintiff fully performed these contracts as modified by changes and periodically as it made deliveries, signed vouchers, and received payments therefor. Throughout this period the plaintiff made no claim of any kind to be compensated under either of these two contracts for any alleged additional expense for moving the caskets from the factory and loading them on the barges, which were located about two hundred feet from the factory door. The loading of the caskets on barges was commenced on March 10, 1920. The first written claims made by the plaintiff were on July 3, 1923, which claims were disallowed. The arrangement to

« AnteriorContinuar »