Page images
PDF
EPUB

REPORT OF DECISIONS

OF

THE SUPREME COURT

IN COURT OF CLAIMS CASES

MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, INC., PETITIONER,

V. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 46280]

[119 C. Cls. 473; 342 U. S. 867] Foreign mails; Postal Convention of 1937. Judgment for plaintiff.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 13, 1951.

FLORIDA DEHYDRATION COMPANY, PETI

TIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

(No. 48873]

[121 C. Cls. 89; 343 U. S. 926.] Lucas Act; statute of limitations. Summary judgment for defendant.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court April 21, 1952.

CENTRAL HIDE & RENDERING CO., PETITONER,

v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 48666]

[121 C. Cls. 436; 343 U. S. 926.) Government contract; collection of food wastes from Army camps and posts. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court April 21, 1952.

122 C. Cls.

RING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER v.

THE UNITED STATES

(No. 50384)

(121 C. Cls. 604; 343 U. S. 953.) Taxes; excessive profits tax; jurisdiction; res adjudicata. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 19, 1952.

THE CHOCTAW NATION, PETITIONER v.

THE UNITED STATES

(Appeals Docket No. 6]

[120 C. Cls. 734; 343 U. S. 955.] Appeal from Indian Claims Commission; decision affirmed.

Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 26, 1952.

CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK AND

TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTORS OF SEVERIN, ETC., PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45828]

(121 C. Cls. 203; 343 U. S. 963] Government contract. Judgment for plaintiff.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court June 2, 1952.

803

WILLIAM C. RAMSEY AND CHARLES E. STE

NICKA, TRUSTEES, PETITIONERS v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 50010]

[121 C. Cls. 426; 343 U. S. 977.) Government contract. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court June 9, 1952.

INDEX DIGEST

ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION.

See Contracts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.

See Contracts X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XXVIII, XXIX,

XXX, XXXI, XXXII; Suit For Salary XII, XIII, XIV, XV.
AID TO GREECE.

See Contracts XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L.
AIRPLANE DESIGN COMPETITION.

I. Under the Jurisdictional Act (60 Stat. 1227) plaintiff

sues for damages on the ground that it entered a
competition staged by the War Department in 1939
for new and improved designs of primary training
aircraft but that the War Department did not
adhere to the terms of its invitation nor to the re-
quirements of the statute (44 Stat. 788) which
governed the competition, and that plaintiff, which
entered the competition and was adjudged a loser,
was damaged thereby. On all the evidence and the
circumstances of the case, it is held that plaintiff

is not entitled to recover. Zephyr Aircraft, 523.

United States C 74.
II. Taken as a whole, the invitation by the War Depart-

ment was in the opinion of the court an "incon-
gruous document” but a sensible reading of the
invitation would indicate that a quantity procure-
ment of planes was contemplated and hence the
design competition was open only to one who offered
a plane concerning the satisfactory performance of
which the Department would be certain. The
invitation must also have meant that the bidder
should have an operating plant available to manu-
facture the planes in quantity. It is not shown by
the evidence that plaintiff had any more than the
blue print of a plane that had never been operated

or even manufactured. Id.
United Sta C 64.

807

« PreviousContinue »