94 C. Cls.

LOUISIANA DELTA CATTLE CO., INC., v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43575]

[93 C. Cls. 662; 314 U. S. —]

Flood control; taking of property; consequential damages. Decided May 5, 1941; petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 13, 1941.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (AS TRANSFEREE IN COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF WALTER J. BEMB, INC.) v. THE UNITED STATES UNITED MOTORS SERVICE, INCORPORATED, v. THE UNITED STATES

[Nos. 43947, 43929]

[92 C. Cls. 159, 629; 312 U. S. 708; 314 U. S. —]

Capital stock tax and excess profits tax; constitutionality; declaration of value not arbitrary; authority of Congress. Decided November 12, 1940; demurrer sustained and petition dismissed.

Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court March 31, 1941.

Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing denied by the Supreme Court October 13, 1941.

THE CREEK NATION v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. F-373]

[92 C. Cls. 346; 93 C. Cls. 767; 314 U. S. —]

Indian claims; decrees of Dawes Commission under Curtis Act.

Decided June 2, 1941; defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's second amended petition sustained, and petition dismissed. Opinion 92 C. Cls. 346.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 20, 1941.

94 C. Cls.

C. R. KIRK & COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 44807]

[93 C. Cls. 488; 314 U. S. —]

Excise tax; sporting goods and games.

Decided April 7, 1941 petition dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled June 2, 1941.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 20, 1941.

DIONYSIA E. TSERIONI ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45214]

[Ante, p. 142; 314 U. S. -]

Import duties; determination by board and liquidation conclusive; statute of limitation.

Decided June 2, 1941; defendant's demurrer sustained and petition dismissed.

Plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 20, 1941.

INDEX DIGEST

"ACCUMULATED PROFITS."
See Taxes XXXVI.

ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933.

See Gold Bullion I, II, IV.

AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.

I. Where plaintiff, a distiller, under the terms of a marketing
agreement for the "Distilled Spirits Industry," to
which marketing agreement plaintiff was a party, under
the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act,
made payments to the Secretary of Agriculture repre-
senting the difference between the price paid by plain-
tiff for cereal grains or products thereof used by
plaintiff in the manufacture of distilled spirits and the
"parity" price of such grains or products; it is held that
neither the terms of the act nor the provisions of the
marketing agreement required the establishment of a
trust fund for the benefit of plaintiff and associated
distilleries, and no such trust fund was established in
which plaintiff might claim an interest. Calvert
Distilling Co., 517.

II. Payments made under the Agricultural Adjustment Act
were unconditional. Id.

III. The establishment by the Treasury of a special account
to which "parity" payments were credited was an
accounting transaction indicating that that particular
amount of money rather than that the particular
dollars was to be used for a special purpose.

Id.

IV. There was no implied contract in the marketing agree-
ment which was in writing and was an express contract.
Id.

BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS.

See Import Duties I, II, IV.

CHANGED CONDITIONS.

See Contracts XXXVI.

CHANGES.

See Contracts XV.

CLAIM FOR REFUND.

See Taxes XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX,
XXXI.

CLAIM PREMATURELY FILED.

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

747

94 C. Cls.

CONCEALMENT.

See Contracts III, VI.
CONDITIONAL PERMIT.

See Tort I, II, III.
CONSOLIDATED RETURN.
See Taxes XV.

CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.

See Taxes XLIV.

CONTRACTING OFFICER.

See Contracts XII, XIII, XIX, XX, XXI.
CONTRACTS.

I. 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 accord-
ance 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 1913-15, 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 disposi-
tion of all material encountered except ledge rock; it is
held that there was no misrepresentation as to condi-
tions on the part of the defendant and plaintiff is not
entitled to recover. Central Dredging Co., 1.

II. Inconsistency in the specifications, if any, would have
been resolved by the bidder examining the work and
deciding for himself. Id.

III. Where certain drawings which the defendant furnished
plaintiff on which to base its bid were not all the draw-
ings 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. Id.

IV. 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 con-
tract; it is held that said claim is without merit. Id.