« ПретходнаНастави »
LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE COURT OF
(Public Law 175–77TH CONGRESS)
AN ACT To amend the Act entitled "An Act conferring jurisdiction upon the
United States Court of Claims to hear, examine, adjudicate, and render judgment on any and all claims which the Ute Indians or any tribe or band thereof may have against the United States, and for other purposes”, approved June 28, 1938.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 6 of the Act entitled "An Act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States Court of Claims to hear, examine, adjudicate, and render judgment on any and all claims which the Ute Indians or any tribe or band thereof may have against the United States, and for other purposes”, approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1209), is hereby amended by striking out the words "anything in any other Acts of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding" and inserting in lieu thereof a period and the following: “Anything in any other Acts of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding”; by striking out "range 35" wherever it appears in such section and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "township 35 north"; by striking out the word "of" following the word “ownership" appearing in the first proviso of the said section; and by striking out the word“constitutent" in section 1 and inserting in lieu the word “constituent”.
Approved, July 15, 1941.
LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE COURT OF
[PRIVATE LAW 136–77TH CONGRESS)
AN ACT Conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine,
and render judgment on the claim of R. Brinskelle and Charlie Melcher.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the United States Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment on the claim of R. Brinskelle and Charlie Melcher for damages for loss of a fishing cabin located on Warrior River, Jefferson County, Alabama, on or about March 6, 1937, because of fire allegedly caused by negligence of Government employees in connection with clearing operations along the banks of the Warrior River and its tributaries.
Sec. 2. Suit upon such claim may be instituted at any time within one year after enactment of this Act and proceedings for the determination of such claim, appeals therefrom, and payment of any judgment thereon shall be in the same manner as in the cases over which such court has jurisdiction under section 145 of the Judicial Code, as amended.
Approved, July 24, 1941
THE COURT OF CLAIMS
June 2, 1941, to November 30, 1941
CENTRAL DREDGING COMPANY, A CORPORA
TION, v. THE UNITED STATES
(No. 42576. Decided June 2, 1941]
On the Proofs
Government contract; misrepresentation as to conditions.-Where
plaintiff, contractor, entered into a contract with defendant June 1929 to furnish all labor and materials and perform all work required for dredging Maumee River and Maumee Bay Channel, Lake Erie, in accordance with specifications, schedules, and drawings, made part of the contract; and where the specifications stated that the contour of the channel was improved to 21 feet depth and 400 feet width in 1913–1915, and that material to be removed was thought to be silt, clay and sand but the bidders were to examine the work and decide for themselves as to its character and to make their bids accordingly, as the United States did not guarantee the accuracy of this description; and where the specifications further stated that the price per cubic yard covered the cost of removal and disposition of all material encountered except ledge rock; it is held that there was no misrepresentation as to conditions on the part of the
defendant and plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Same.-Inconsistency in the specifications, if any, would have been
resolved by the bidder examining the work and deciding for
himself. Same.-Where certain drawings which the defendant furnished plain
tiff on which to base its bid were not all the drawings which were in the possession of the defendant, it is held there was no attempted concealment by an officer of the Government in not furnishing said additional drawings.
94 C. Cls. Reporter's Statement of the Case Same.-Where the claim for subcontractor's loss is based on grounds
presented to the contracting officer before the subcontractor entered into its contract with plaintiff and where it was well known to the plaintiff that the contracting officer and the Chief of Engineers both believed that the hard material which plaintiff had encountered was strictly within the terms of the contract; it is held that said claim is without merit.
The Reporter's statement of the case:
Mr. Justin L. Edgerton for the plaintiff. Mr. Frank F. Nesbit was on the brief.
Mr. Percy M. Cox, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea, for the defendant.
The court made special findings of fact as follows:
1. At the times hereinafter referred to the plaintiff was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, and during the years 1928 to 1930, both inclusive, was engaged in the business of excavation, dredging, and river and harbor improvement.
2. On June 29, 1929, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby, for the consideration of 29.4 cents per cubic yard, place measure, the plaintiff agreed to furnish all labor and materials, and perform all work required for dredging Maumee River and Maumee Bay Channel, Lake Erie, in accordance with specifications, schedules, and drawings, made part of the contract, the work to be completed within a time calculated according to a prescribed formula, no work to be required during the period between December 15 and April 1, inclusive, which represented the closed season for navigation.
The plane of reference used in the specifications was 570.8 feet, being the height above mean tide in New York Harbor. As to contour of the channel the specifications stated :
The channel was improved to 21 feet depth and 400 feet width in 1913–1915. As to character of materials they stated :
The material to be removed is believed to be silt, clay and sand, but bidders are expected to examine the work