Page images
PDF
EPUB

REPORT OF DECISIONS

OF
THE SUPREME COURT

IN COURT OF CLAIMS CASES

R. H. CROWLEY, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED

STATES

[No. 45648)

(105 C. Cls. 97; 329 U. S. -] Government contract; decision of resident engineer final, under the contract, as to quality of materials.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 14, 1946.

SILAS MASON COMPANY, INC., WALSH CON

STRUCTION COMPANY, ATKINSON-KIER COMPANY, PETITIONERS, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 44659]

(105 C. Cls. 27; 329 U. S. -] Government contract; jurisdiction; plaintiffs not entitled to sue where administrative procedure agreed to in contract as to settlement of disputes is abandoned without justification.

Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 14, 1946.

DEWEY SCHMOLL, SUCCESSOR ASSIGNEE FOR

THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS OF MURCH BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., AND NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, V.

THE UNITED STATES [Nos. 44761, 44762, 44763, 44764, 44765, 44766, 44767, 44768, 44769,

44770, 44999]

(105 C. Cls. 415; 329 U. S.-) Government contracts for construction and remodeling of post office buildings; rights of surety; rental of temporary 736172-47-vol. 107–47

709

107 C. Cls.

quarters; defective pleading; deductions for taxes due by contractor, etc.

Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 14, 1946.

S. J. GROVES & SONS COMPANY, PETITIONER, v.

THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45910]

(106 C. Cls. 93; 329 U. S. – ] Government contract; extra costs due to unknown conditions and alleged misrepresentations.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 21, 1946.

JOHN STUB, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Patents; date of completion within period of employment by Government. Petition dismissed on defendant's plea in bar.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 14, 1946.

Rehearing denied October 28, 1946.

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, V. THE

HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPANY, INC.

[No. 45739]

(105 C. Cls. 161; 329 U. S. 64]

On writ of certiorari (327 U. S. 777) to review a judgment of the Court of Claims holding that delays by the Government in releasing areas for the contractor to work on constituted a breach of the contract for which the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

709

The judgment of the Court of Claims was reversed by the Supreme Court November 25, 1946.

Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court, holding:

Where contract for the construction of lighting equipment for airport runways contemplated that the work was to commence as the Government completed construction of the runways but the contract did not contain a warranty on the part of the Government to make the runways promptly available, and the work of constructing runways was performed with diligence but was delayed due to unforeseen causes, the Government could not be held liable to the contractor for damages caused

by delay in completing contract. Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, and Mr. Justice Jackson dissented, stating:

It is admitted that the Government had given the contractor “notice to proceed” which in our opinion had the legal consequences set forth in the opinion of the court below whose judgment we would affirm.

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

(No. 45230]

[103 C. Cls. 494; 329 U. S. 40] On writ of certiorari (326 U. S. 707) to review a judgment of the Court of Claims holding that of the 11 Indian Tribes which were plaintiffs in the suit brought under the Jurisdictional Act of August 26, 1935 (49 Stat. 801), four of these bands or tribes, the Tillamook, Coquille, Too-too-to-ney and Chetco tribes, had satisfactorily established original Indian title, through exclusive use and occupancy in 1855, and long prior thereto, to the lands described in the findings; and that they are entitled, as a matter of law, to recover compensation for the lands of which they were deprived, and which were taken by the United States without payment therefor.

The judgment of the Court of Claims was affirmed by the Supreme Court, in an opinion announced November 25, 1946,

107 C. Ols.

in

by Chief Justice Vinson, in which Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Murphy joined.

Mr. Justice Black filed a concurring opinion.

Mr. Justice Reed, with whom Mr. Justice Rutledge and Mr. Justice Burton joined, filed a dissenting opinion.

Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

The Chief Justice and Justices Frankfurter, Douglas and Murphy were of the opinion that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court of Claims by the Act of August 26, 1935, "over any and all legal and equitable claims arising under or growing out of the original Indian title, claim, or rights

the lands * occupied by the Indian tribes and bands described in" certain unratified treaties negotiated with Indian tribes in the Territory of Oregon, extends to the appropriation by the United States of title to lands in Indian occupancy even though the Indian title thereto had never been officially recognized by treaty or Act of Congress.

Justice Black concurred in the affirmation but however on the ground that the jurisdictional act is susceptible of interpretation as creating an obligation to pay the Oregon Indians for all lands to which their ancestors held an "original Indian title," and should be given such construction in view of the fact that, should relief be presently denied, the Indians could pursue their claims under subsequent legislation establishing the Indian Claims Commission. (Act of August 13, 1946.)

Justices Reed, Rutledge and Burton were of the opinion that compensation could not be allowed in the absence of prior recognition by the United States through treaty or statute of any title or legal or equitable right of the Indians in the land.

THE SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS, PETITIONER,

v. THE UNITED STATES

(No. C-531-11)
[Supreme Court No. 368]

(105 C. Cls. 658; 329 U. 9.-) Indian claims; agreement under the Act of March 2, 1889; proceeding on accounting made by the Court.

« PreviousContinue »