Page images
PDF
EPUB

134 C. Cls.

BUCH EXPRESS, INC., PETITIONER v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 49294]

[132 C. Cls. 772; 351 U. S. 940]

Transportation of freight; radio rates applicable to radar equipment; petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 21, 1956.

SOL NEWSTEAD, PETITIONER v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 392-55]

[134 C. Cls. 893, 351 U. S. 956]

Unjust conviction; suit under the provisions of 28 U. S. C. 1495, 2513.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 28, 1956.

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. AUBREY H.

BOND

(No. 390-54]

[133 C. Cls. 204; 351 U. S. 974]

Pay and allowances; retired pay Army officer; plaintiff to

recover.

Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court June 4, 1956.

903

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THE OHIO POWER COMPANY

[No. 218-54]

[131 C. Cls. 95; 132 C. Cls. 827; 350 U. S. 862, 919; 351 U. S. 980]

Excess profits tax; accelerated amortization of emergency facilities under section 124 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Order of December 5, 1955, denying defendant's petition for rehearing following denial of its petition for writ of certiorari vacated by the Supreme Court June 11, 1956, and the petition for rehearing is continued.

INDEX DIGEST

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY.

See Pay and Allowances XXII; Suit for Salary II, III.

ALASKA ROAD COMMISSION.

See Overtime Pay I, II, III.

ALTITUDE, APPARATUS FOR MEASURING.
See Patents I.

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

See Contracts IV, V, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI,

BUERGER'S DISEASE.

See Pay and Allowances IX, X, XI.

CAREER COMPENSATION ACT.

See Pay and Allowances IV, V, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXVI, XXX,
XXXI.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

See Suit for Salary II, III, IV, V.

CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT.

Plaintiff, a retired letter carrier, was receiving an annuity of $900
and claims that he is entitled to $1,200 under the Civil Service
Retirement Act. It is held that only the actual number of
years of service may be used as a multiplication factor in
determining the amount of the annuity. Plaintiff had served
24 years and 9 months. He was required to multiply by that
and not by 30 years. He is not entitled to recover and the
petition is dismissed. Frye, 469.

[blocks in formation]

I. Plaintiff contracted with the Army for collection of trash
from the Fort Myer military reservation and seeks
reimbursement for its costs in disposing of such trash
in the Arlington County incinerator. The contract
provided that disposal of the trash was the contractor's

909

134 C. Cls.

CONTRACTS-Continued

responsibility and specified that the Government had
no responsibility once the refuse was on the con-
tractor's trucks. It is held that plaintiff may not
recover. Shayne Bros., Inc., 154.

United States 95.

II. Where plaintiff was required by the contract to investigate
conditions surrounding the work, including the difficulty
and cost of performance, the contracting officer had a
right to assume that it had done so and knew what its
disposal costs would be. Id.

United States 95.

III. Where on the day the bids were opened a letter was
mailed by Arlington County to the commanding
officer at Fort Myer advising of the charges for trash
disposal, and the bidder was not notified thereof, it is
held that there was no withholding of material informa-
tion since the disposal of the trash was the responsibility
of plaintiff, and since the proof does not show the letter
was received by the contracting officer before the bids
were opened.
Id.
95.

United States

IV. The Government in 1943 leased a textile mill property,
consisting of land and buildings, which was subse-
quently acquired by plaintiff. The lease was ter-
minated on January 31, 1947. During its occupancy
the Government spent more than $558,000 in modern-
izing and improving the property, which had been
standing idle since 1934. The suit is for damages for
the Government's failure to restore the property to
the same condition that existed at the beginning of the
lease, there being a provision in the lease as to that
requirement. It is held that while plaintiff's insistence
upon technical application of the lease provision is
untenable in view of the greatly increased value of the
property resulting from defendant's improvements,
and the failure to prove substantial damages because
of defendant's breach of contract, some of the claims
are recognized as compensable and judgment for
$20,849.84 is ordered. Realty Associates, Inc., 167. ・ ・
160 (1).

Landlord and Tenant

V. In a suit for specific performance the plaintiff might well
require the defendant to restore the premises to the
inaccessible and unusable condition which existed at
the time of the execution of the lease, but in the instant

« PreviousContinue »