Page images
PDF
EPUB

829

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FRIGIDAIRE DIVISION

[blocks in formation]

Manufacturer's excise tax; warranty of sealed-in unit of electric refrigerator. Plaintiff entitled to recover in part. Defendant's petition and plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court February 14, 1955.

JAMES J. GEARON, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 159-53]

[126 C. Cls. 548; 129 C. Cls. 315; 348 U. S. 942]

Patent; suit for unauthorized use of invention for pontoon bridge. Certain counts of plaintiffs' claim dismissed on defendant's motion.

Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court February 14, 1955.

UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, PETITIONER, V. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 140-53]

[129 C. Cls. 466; 348 U. S. 942]

Jurisdiction; War Risk Protection and Indemnity Policy issued under Act of June 29, 1940. Plaintiff's petition dismissed on defendant's motion.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court February 14, 1955.

130 C. Cls.

ESTATE OF LOUIS GOLDSTEIN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 50270]

[129 C. Cls. 264; 348 U. S. 942]

Estate tax; proceeds of life insurance properly included in decedent's estate. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court February 14, 1955.

DAVIS AIRFOILS, INC., PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 48775]

[129 C. Cls. 514; 348 U. S. 950]

Patents; damages; lack of consideration; invalidity. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court February 28, 1955.

INDEX DIGEST

ACT OF MAY 11, 1954.

I. Where, in the instant case, on November 3, 1953,
pursuant to the decision of the United States
Supreme Court in United States v. Wunderlich, 342
U. S. 98, judgment of dismissal was entered as to all
claims except one (126 C. Cls. 567), and where said
judgment had become final prior to the enactment
of Public Law No. 356, May 11, 1954, 68 Stat. 81;
it is held that the enactment of the Act of May 11,
1954, does not operate to reopen the final judgment
of dismissal entered prior to its enactment. United
Foundation, 666.

Courts 470.

II. The legislative history of the Act of May 11, 1954,
sustains the court's conclusion that the Act does not
apply to matters previously adjudicated. Id.

[blocks in formation]

III. The order of the court (126 C. Cls. 567) dismissing the
claims, except one, in the instant case, having
become final prior to the enactment of Public Law
No. 356, is ratified and confirmed. Id.

[blocks in formation]

IV. The defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
petition, which was filed by leave of the court, is
granted, and the petition, except as to the claim
designated as Claim E is dismissed. The case has
been referred to a commissioner of the court to hear
evidence limited to Claim E. Id.
Courts

460.

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.

See Contracts XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX,
LXV, LXVI, LXVII, LXVIII, LXIX, LXX, LXXI, LXXII;
Suit for Salary XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII.

AGENCY.

See Report to Congress VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV.

ALASKA ROAD.

See Contracts XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L, LI, LII, LIII, LIV,
LV, LVI, LVII, LVIII.

855

AMMUNITION, TRANSPORTATION OF.

130 C. Cls.

I. Plaintiff, a common carrier by motor engaged in inter-
state commerce, during the period from August 12,
1942, to August 6, 1943, transported for the Navy
Department numerous shipments of ammunition
which were described on the bills of lading as “Am-
munition For Small Arms With Explosive Bullet
(Loaded 20 M/M Shells)" or as "Ammunition for
Small Arms With Explosive Bullet (20 M/M H. E. I.
AA Complete Rounds)". Said shipments consisted
of ammunition with explosive bullet for use in a gun
known as "20 M/M Automatic Gun A/N-M2." For
such transportation service, plaintiff billed the
United States at the rate of 51 cents per hundred
pounds, which was the class 75 rate (75 percent of the
first-class rate) applicable on "Ammunition, Ex-
plosive for Cannon," as published in Middle Atlantic
States Motor Carrier Conference, Inc., Freight
Tariffs, Series 10, MF-I. C. C. Nos. A−66 and A-106,
which were effective June 30, 1942, and thereafter
during the period involved in this suit. The original
charges were paid on the fasis of the rates billed by
plaintiff. Cowan, Inc., 585.

[blocks in formation]

II. In the instant suit defendant contends that the appli-
cable rate is contained in item 30 of Agent Jackson's
No. 12, which reads: "Cartridges, small arm, blank
or loaded, in boxes: Vol., min. wt. 30,000 lbs.," with
a rating of "4-5-4." This rating means that such
shipments carry the fourth class rate in the eastern
territory, the fifth class rate in southern territory,
and the fourth class rate in western territory. Id.
Carriers

192.

III. The ammunition in question consisted of a cylindrical
brass case with primer, loaded with an explosive type
projectile. The projectile alone is about 4 inches
long and the complete shell, including the case and
projectile is about 7 inches in length. The di-
ameter as indicated is such that the shell can be
fired from a weapon having a bore of 20 millimeters
or about .787 inches. Id.

[blocks in formation]

IV. The only shipments included in plaintiff's petition
that are now in controversy are those which were
transported by plaintiff during the period December
8, 1942 to July 7, 1943, from Elkton, Maryland, to

130 C. Cls.

AMMUNITION, TRANSPORTATION OF-Continued

Nixon, New Jersey. The issue with respect to such
shipments is whether the 20-millimeter ammunition
transported by plaintiff should have been rated at
the class 75 rate of 51 cents per hundred pounds ap-
plicable to shipments of "AMMUNITION, Ex-
plosive for Cannon: Fixed or Semi-Fixed, N. O. I.
in Packages," or at the fourth-class rate of 34 cents
per hundred pounds applicable to shipments of
"AMMUNITION, Explosive *** Cartridges,
small arm, blank or loaded, in boxes" described in
Item 30, Agent Jackson's MF-I. C. C. No. 12,
which was used by the General Accounting Office as
a basis for the settlement of plaintiff's bills that are
now in controversy. Id.

[blocks in formation]

V. In the instant case the question presented is the proper
classification of ammunition for a 20-millimeter gun.
On the evidence, it is shown that the 20-millimeter
gun has been heretofore classified as a cannon, and
not as a small arms weapon.

[blocks in formation]

Id.

VI. There was no motor carrier freight classification in
effect during the period involved which explicitly
included 20-millimeter ammunition in either the
definition of "ammunition, fixed N. O. I. for cannon"
or in the definition of "ammunition, cartridges, small
arm, blank or loaded." The classifications in the
tariffs relied upon by both parties show the ratings
that are applicable to shipments of ammunition for
cannon and of cartridges for small arms, but until
August 7, 1943, there was no motor carrier tariff in
effect which clearly provided how 20-millimeter am-
munition should be classified and rated. However,
since this ammunition was for use in a 20-millimeter
gun, and since this gun has been rated as a cannon,
it follows that ammunition for it must be rated as
"ammunition, fixed N. O. I. for cannon." Id.
Carriers 192.

VII. The parties have agreed that if the shipments in
controversy here should have been rated at the class
75 rate of 51 cents per hundred pounds, judgment
should be entered for plaintiff in the sum of
$12,603.47. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to
recover this amount. Id.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »