Conclusion of Law 152 Ct. Cl. the 350 Hungarian horses released by the United States Army through action of Colonel Hamilton at the Bergstetten farm for return to Hungary. Plaintiff's claim that Eugene de Horthy protested the release of these horses for return to Hungary is not supported by substantial evidence. The evidence is insufficient to establish that plaintiff ever acquired any interest in these horses by any partnership agreement between him and Eugene de Horthy. Plaintiff's claim that these 10 horses were exchanged for the 9 horses, included in these findings in Group C, is not supported by substantial evidence. From all of the evidence in this case, it is found that plaintiff had no right, title, or interest in these Group D horses at the time of their taking by the United States Army on April 25, 1945, at the Bergstetten farm in Bavaria, Germany. 24. The only horse involved in this case, in which plaintiff had any right, title or interest at the time of the taking of the horses by the United States Army on April 25, 1945, was the stallion Taj Akbar. In 1939, plaintiff and his associates in the syndicate paid the Aga Khan 240,000 Swiss francs, or $53,816.88 for this stallion, at a time when he was six years old and had recently placed second in the Epsom Derby. In 1945, Taj Akbar was 12 years of age, and under the circumstances existing at the time, it is reasonable to conclude that the fair and reasonable value of this stallion on April 25, 1945, was the sum of $25,000. Plaintiff's interest at that time was a 2/40 share, or $1,250. 25. With respect to defendant's counterclaim, the evidence is insufficient to determine the extent to which defendant incurred expenses for the care, subsistence or transportation of any or all of the horses involved in this case. CONCLUSION OF LAW Upon the foregoing findings of fact, which are made a part of the judgment herein, the court concludes as a matter of law that the defendant is not entitled to recover on its counterclaim and it is, therefore, dismissed. ORDERS JANUARY 1, 1961, TO MARCH 31, 1961 CONG. NO. 14–58. JANUARY 6, 1961 Claude S. Reeder. Congressional reference; contract; equitable claim.—The court is asked by Congress to determine whether plaintiff has a legal or equitable claim against the United States, and the amounts, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States. The claim is for the construction costs incurred by plaintiff in completing a building allegedly at the request of the United States for use as a garage for repairing Government vehicles. On July 21, 1960, Trial Commissioner Currell Vance filed a report finding as an ultimate finding that plaintiff has neither an equitable nor a legal claim against the United States. The plaintiff failed to file execptions and brief within the time provided by Rule 46 (b) of the rules of the court and, accordingly, in response to a motion filed by defendant on December 7, 1960, the court issued an order on January 6, 1961, reporting to Congress that plaintiff has neither an equitable nor a legal claim against the United States, and ordering that the clerk of the court transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of the trial commissioner and a certified copy of the court's order. No. 383-54. JANUARY 13, 1961 Robert B. McGuire. Civilian pay; dismissal; recovery-measure of. Opinion 145 Ct. Cl. 17.—In accordance with the opinion of the court and on the filing of a memorandum report by the commissioner as to the amount due thereunder, it was ordered that judgment be entered for plaintiff for $10,500, and that the defendant's special plea in fraud be dismissed. 152 Ct. Cl. No. 62-60. JANUARY 27, 1961 Alma-Marie Smith. Civilian pay; judgment; estoppel by judgment; District Court judgment.—Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the Department of State, sued to recover back pay of which she claims she was wrongfully denied because of the action of the employing agency in bringing about her involuntary retirement for disability. Plaintiff brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking restoration, a hearing and back pay, and her suit was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed (Smith v. Dulles, 236 F. 2d 739), ruling that plaintiff had failed to show that the action taken by the State Department was improper in any way. Plaintiff's subsequent suit for back pay on the ground of wrongful dismissal (involuntary retirement) came before this court on defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the judgment of the District Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in plaintiff's reinstatement suit, collaterally estopped plaintiff from relitigating her case in the Court of Claims, citing Edgar v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 9. On January 27, 1961, the court, upon consideration of the motion, the briefs and argument of counsel, and on the basis of the Edgar case, supra, ordered that defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and the petition dismissed. No. 424-60. MARCH 10, 1961 Tortuga Marine Salvage Company, a Proprietorship. Court of Claims; jurisdiction; maritime contract; transfer to District Court to cure defect of jurisdiction.-Plaintiff sues to recover damages for breach of its contract with the Navy Department under which the plaintiff was to provide a boat and crew for the use of defendant at a specified charter rate, claiming that notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff was ready, willing and able to perform the contract, defendant unreasonably delayed granting security clearances to the company and crew members and thereafter ordered only 863 limited use of the boat so that the charter hire earned for the remainder of the charter period never exceeded the minimum guaranteed charter hire of the contract. Defendant moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the Act of September 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 912, 28 U.S.C. § 1506, on the ground that the claim is based upon an alleged breach of a maritime contract of charter party and is therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts under the Suits in Admiralty Act of March 9, 1920, 41 Stat. 525, as amended, 46 U.S.C. §§ 741-50. On March 10, 1961, the court, after consideration of the defendant's motion and plaintiff's opposition thereto, together with oral argument, and on the basis of section 2 of the Act of September 13, 1960, ordered that defendant's motion be granted and the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. Plaintiff's motion for rehearing before the full court and for reconsideration of the order of transfer was denied June 7,1961. App. No. 1-60. MARCH 10, 1961 Pueblo de Pecos, Pueblo de Jemez, and Pueblo de Jemez acting for and on behalf of Pueblo de Pecos. Indian claim; appeal from Indian Claims Commission; judgment; res judicata; Pueblo Lands Board judgment.— The Indian claimants had sued under the Indian Claims Commission Act to recover additional compensation for lands in New Mexico, charging that the consideration ($1.50 per acre) awarded them by the Pueblo Lands Board under the Pueblo Lands Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 636, was inadequate and that they had not received fair and honorable treatment from the Government. The Indians had not appealed the judgment of the Lands Board to the District Court as they had a right to do, and the Indian Claims Commission held that the judgment of the Lands Board was res judicata with respect to the claim filed under the Indian Claims Commission Act. The Commission also held that there had been no taking of the lands and that the claim for interest was without merit, 152 Ct. Cl. and that the water rights of the Indians had been considered by the Lands Board. The case came before the court on appeal from the Indian Claims Commission (8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 195). Upon consideration thereof, together with briefs and oral argument of counsel, the court, on March 10, 1961, ordered that the decision of the Commission be affirmed. Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, 368 U.S. 821. Pueblo de Isleta. APP. No. 8-59. MARCH 10, 1961 Indian claim; appeal from Indian Claims Commission; Indian title; New Mexico land.-The Indian claimants had sued under the Indian Claims Commission Act to recover compensation for the loss of two tracts of land in New Mexico. From a final determination of the Commission holding that the Indians did not own the Bosque tract and that no unfair or dishonorable dealings had been had, the Indians appealed. Upon consideration of the appeal, together with the briefs and arguments of counsel, the court, on March 10, 1961, ordered that the decision of the Indian Claims Commission (7 Ind. Cl. Comm. 619) be affirmed. Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, 368 U.S. 822. Roy W. Lockwood. No. 249-58. MARCH 24, 1961 Civilian pay; dismissal; reduction in grade; measure of recovery-overtime-regularly scheduled.-Plaintiff sued to recover overtime compensation which he claimed would have accrued to him during two periods of illegal separation and one period of illegal reduction in grade, each personnel action having been followed by reinstatements ordered by the Civil Service Commission. In an opinion rendered February 3, 1960, the court held that plaintiff was entitled to recover overtime calculated on the basis of the average amount of overtime which he worked during the year prior to his first 1 1 H |