REPORT OF DECISIONS

OF

THE SUPREME COURT

IN COURT OF CLAIMS CASES

THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF KANSAS v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43582]

[Ante, p. 201; 319 U. S. -]

Fraud; defendant's plea of fraud sustained by the evidence; agency.

Decided October 5, 1942; defendant's special plea sustained and claim declared forfeited. Plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled December 7, 1942.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 10, 1943.

PITT RIVER POWER COMPANY (A CORPORATION) v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45588]

[Ante, p. 253; 319 U. S. -]

Flood control; taking of private property for public use. Decided December 7, 1942; defendant's demurrer sustained and plaintiff's petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 10, 1943.

809

ACCOUNT STATED.

INDEX DIGEST

Where Commissioner of Internal Revenue stated
in letter that value of life policies was not tax-
able but stated further that only part of estate
transfer tax overpayment was refundable in view
of limitation statute, and rejected refund claim
as to balance, there was no "account stated" as
to rejected portion such as would give rise to an
agreement "implied in fact" within the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Claims although the Com-
missioner was in error in his interpretation of
the statute of limitation. Braun et al., 176.

ACCOUNTING METHOD NOT BINDING.

See National Industrial Recovery Administration Act XI.
ACCRUAL OF PAY.

See Pay and Allowances III.

ACT OF MARCH 4, 1913.

See Pay and Allowances XIII.

ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938.

See National Industrial Recovery Administration Act III, IV, V, VI.
ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.

AGENCY.

There is nothing in the statutes or Army Regula-
tions which probihits the correction of an obvious
administrative error when discovered. Rob-
bins, 479.

Where the secretary-treasurer of corporation, duly
authorized to present a claim for refund of cor-
porate income taxes, presented forged corpora-
tion minutes to the Bureau of Internal Revenue in
proof of said claim, with the knowledge that the
minutes were forged; such action on the part of
an authorized officer was the action of the corpo-
ration. Standard Oil Company of Kansas, 201.

AGREEMENT BY OPERATORS.

See Air Mail Contracts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI,
XII.

AIR MAIL ROUTE CERTIFICATES.

See Air Mail Contracts XII, XIII, XIV, XVII.

811

98 C. Cls.

AIR MAIL CONTRACTS.

I. Where, at the invitation of the Postmaster General,
representatives of air line operators, including
plaintiffs, met in Washington and after confer-
ences among themselves, agreed to the alloca-
tion to certain of such conferees of seven pro-
posed air mail routes and further agreed to
submit to determination by the Postmaster Gen-
eral of the allocation of five other such routes;
and where, thereafter, none of said operators,
including plaintiffs, made any attempt to ob-
tain the right to carry air mail over any of said
routes unless such operator was so designated
in said allocation or selected by the Postmaster
General in accordance with said agreement, all
without competitive bidding; it is held that such
agreement was in violation of section 3950, Re-
vised Statutes, and contracts held by parties to
such agreement were subject to annulment by
the Postmaster General in accordance with the
provisions of the statute.-Pacific Air Transport,
et al., 649.

II. While representatives of air line operators, in
conference, agreeing to the allocation of air mail
contracts without competitive bidding, may have
been thinking largely along the line of such con-
tracts being awarded by extensions of routes
rather than on bids following advertisements,
such agreement was never expressly so limited,
and the principal conferees, including plaintiffs,
always conducted themselves thereafter as if
their agreements applied to contracts awarded
after advertisements for bids as well as to con-
tracts awarded by extension. Id.

III. It is immaterial that the Postmaster General con-
sented to agreements to allocate air mail routes
without competitive bidding, or that the Post-
master General urged such agreements upon the
operators of air mail lines called into confer-
ence by him; section 3950, R. S., makes no ex-
ception of a combination or agreement consented
to or instigated by a public officer. Id.
IV. The obvious purpose of the power conferred by
statute upon the Postmaster General to grant
"extensions" of air mail routes was to promote
the public convenience and economy by adding
a segment to an air mail line, so that there would