Imágenes de páginas

124 C. Cls.



See Pay and Allowances VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV.

I. In a suit brought by plaintiff for damages caused by

loss of and damage to shipments of fourth class,
unprotected mail, it is held that under the facts
and circumstances of the instant case, the Govern-
ment is not liable to plaintiff for the loss of or
damage to the fourth class, unprotected mail for
which claim is made. Plaintiff having failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the

petition is dismissed. Twentier, 244.
Post Office am 23.

United States On 78.
II. Plaintiff, a partnership, in June, 1945, delivered

shipments of pins and rings to the United States
Post Office at Bisbee, Arizona, addressed to &
Special Service Officer overseas and the shipments
were transmitted to the Army Postal System in
New York City, but they never reached the ad-
dressee. A part of the shipments was later re-
turned to plaintiff in a damaged condition and it
was found that some of the rings were missing.
Having been paid in advance for the shipment,
plaintiff alleges it was obligated to send another
shipment of rings to those who had ordered them
and in so doing incurred additional expense, which
plaintiff seeks to recover in addition to the value

of the goods lost. Id.
Post Office On 23.

United States Cam 78.
III. Under the statute the Army Postal System is an ex-

tension of the United States Post Office Depart-
ment. If, in the instant case, any contract of
bailment arises, by implication or otherwise, it
must be between plaintiff and the United States
Post Office Department, not plaintiff and the

Army. Id.
Post Office Paw 23.

124 0. Ols.


IV. The United States, in the carriage and delivery of

mail for the public benefit, is engaged in the dis-
charge of a governmental function. The liability
of the Government for the loss or damage of mail
is limited by the applicable statutes and the Postal
Regulations issued thereunder. In order to se-
cure protection against loss or damage, it is neces-
sary, under the Postal Regulations, to use regis-
tered, insured or c. o. d. mail. No liability exists
for the loss or damage of shipments by fourth
class, unprotected mail, which is the type of mail

involved in the instant case. Id.
Post Office C 23.

United States Can 78.
V. Provision for the Army Postal System is mad, by

the Act of August 21, 1941, as amended, 39 U.
S. C. 138 (1946 Ed.). Under the provisions of
this Act, and the Postal Regulations in effect
thereunder, at the time the shipments in question
were made, the use of registered, insured or c. o. d.
services for mail addressed to Army Post Office
addresses was forbidden. It is held that the fact
that under the Postal Laws and Regulations the
plaintiff, in this instance, could use only fourth
class, unprotected mail indicates that defendant,
in the performance of a sovereign function, was
unwilling to provide any remedy of indemnifica-
tion for losses of the kind which plaintiff has
suffered, due to the risks inherent in wartime

transportation of mails overseas. Id.

Post Office Cm 23.

See Pay and Allowances VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV.

I. Where the plaintiff became surety on a bail bond

in the United States District Court in the amount
of $1,000, and the bond was forfeited when the
defendant in the criminal action failed to appear
before the court; and where the plaintiff located
the defendant and had him produced in court;
and where the District Court thereupon ordered
a remission of $750 to the plaintiff on the forfeited
bond which has not been paid; it is held that
plaintiff is entitled to recover. Plaintiff's motion

granted. Judgement for $750. Weinstein, 559,
Bail C 79 (1).

124 C. Cis.


II. At the time the plaintiff's bond was forfeited and he

paid the money into court, there was no statutory
provision whereby the District Court could refund
the money pursuant to the order of refund entered
on December 8, 1950. The Act of October 27,
1951, 65 Stat. 658, permitting refund in such cases,
was not retroactive and hence not applicable to
the instant case but is an expression of Congress

as to what is right in such cases. Id.

Bail Con 79 (1).
III. Following the judgment in Peerless Casulaly Co. v.

United States, 118 C. Cls. 624, entered upon a
stipulation of the parties in a similar case, the
Government does not oppose the plaintiff's motion

in the instant case. Id.

Courts em 470.

See Taxes I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII.

See Pay and Allowances XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX.

See Pay and Allowances XXVI.


See Suit For Salary, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII.

I. Where the plaintiffs in cases Nos. 50272 and 50273

were subcontractors under a contract between the
Government and the Batavia Metal Products,
Inc., which has not filed a petition in the Court of
Claims, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover from
the defendant unless they are entitled to recover
under the provisions of the Contract Settlement
Act. The plaintiff in No. 50272 was also a sub-
contractor of Erie Basin Metal Products, Inc.,
which has a petition in the Court of Claims but
does not sue on behalf of its subcontractor, and it
is likewise not entitled to recover from the defend-
ant unless it is entitled to recover under the

Contract Settlement Act. Erie Basin, 95.
United States Com 7472.

124 O. Ols.


II. Under the provisions of Section 7 of the Contract

Settlement Act the Government can become
liable on the claim of a subcontractor whose con-
tract has been terminated only upon written notice
by the Government to the subcontractor and to
the prime contractor that it assumes responsibility
for settling the claim of the subcontractor, upon
the conditions set out in the notice, and upon
consent thereto by the subcontractor. See Kal
Machine Works, Inc. v. United States, 107 C. Cls.
202. The petitions of National Machine Works
and Interstate Machinery Co. in the instant cases
do not allege the existence of any such notices

from the United States. Id.

United States Or 744%.
III. The Joint Termination Regulations (10 F. R. 7985)

in providing that the United States shall assume
liability for the claims of subcontractors where the
prime contractor is financially irresponsible do
not undertake to eliminate, if they could, the
statutory requirement that the United States
make a written acceptance of this responsibility.
The United States may refuse to pay the sub-
contractor because it denies liability to the prime
contractor for an amount sufficient to discharge
the subcontractor's claim, or for other reasons.
The United States does not become liable to pay
the subcontractor until it gives the required notice

assuming liability. Id.

United States em 7442.
IV. Under Section 7 (b) of the Contract Settlement Act,

it is obligatory on the contracting agency, rather
than permissive, for the agency to exercise super-
vision and control over payments to the war
contractor when the contractor is unable to meet
his obligations. It is obligatory on the contracting
agency to see to it that any payment to the war
contractor on account of the termination claim of
a subcontractor should get into the hands of the
subcontractor. The legislative history of the Act
sustains the court's interpretation of Section 7 (b).

United States Com 74.
V. Under Section 7 (b) the defendant is not obliged to

pay the claim of a subcontractor whenever the
prime contractor goes into bankruptcy. A con-

124 C. Cls.


dition precedent to the obligation to pay the sub-
contractor is the acknowledgement of an obligation
to the prime contractor by the Government in

an amount sufficient to pay the subcontractor. Id.

United States Om 74%.
VI. In the claim of the National Machine Works, as a

subcontractor under Erie Basin Metal Products,
Inc., the defendant did not assume direct liability
to the subcontractor, but the settlement was
made between the prime contractor and the sub-
contractor, and it was contemplated that the
subcontractor would be paid by the prime con-
contractor. There was no assumption of liability
by the Government to the subcontractor. No
notice was issued agreeing to make direct settle-
ment and defendant is not liable on this cause of

action. Id.

United States Em 74%%.
VII. It is held that defendant's motions for summary

judgments as to plaintiffs National Machine
Works, Inc., and Interstate Machinery Co. Inc.,
must be granted and the petitions dismissed.
Summary judgment in the case of Erie Basin

Metal Products, Inc., is denied. Id.

United States Prom 744%.
VIII. Under the provisions of Section 13 of the Contract

Settlement Act (58 Stat. 649), providing for
administrative consideration of claims and for
appeal to the Maritime Commission from de-
cision of its Settlement Board, the period of
limitation of one year begins to run from the date
of a demand for findings. In the instant case,
plaintiff's demand for findings was made on July
20, 1949. Plaintiff's petition filed in the Court
of Claims on June 14, 1950, was within time.
Defendant's motion is denied. Arlington Trust

Co., 309.

Limitation of Actions Com 105 (2).
IX. The events which cause the limitation periods to run

are specified in the statute; either the issuance of
findings or the failure to issue findings after &
demand. In the instant case the former event did
not occur and the latter event did not occur until
July 20, 1949. Plaintiff's petition, June 14, 1950,

was filed in time. Id.
Limitation of Actions Com 105 (2).

« AnteriorContinuar »