THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FRIGIDAIRE DIVISION
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
[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
[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.
ESTATE OF LOUIS GOLDSTEIN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. THE UNITED STATES
[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
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
See Report to Congress VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV.
See Contracts XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L, LI, LII, LIII, LIV, LV, LVI, LVII, LVIII.
AMMUNITION, TRANSPORTATION OF.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
« PreviousContinue » |