of the facts as found by him after unforeseen condi-
tions had been brough to his attention by the con-
tractor. Siesel, 582.
XLV. There was no provision in the contract allowing the
Comptroller General the right to construe the rights
of the parties under the contract, either in fact or
law. Id.
XLVI. Under the finding of the contracting officer as to the
difference in conditions, article 3 of the contract
applies to the settlement and not the provisions of the
specifications under sections 192 and 193. Id.
XLVII. Under the erroneous and unauthorized construction of
the contract by the Comptroller General, there was
deducted as a credit to the Government the sum of
$161,266.25, whereas if the plaintiff had been accorded
an equitable adjustment there would have been a
deduction of only $93,089.27, or a difference of
$68,176.98. Id.
XLVIII. Where the contract for the construction of a post office
building provided that the Government should furnish
to the prime contractor models for the ornamental
stone and marble to be placed in the building, and
where there was delay on the part of the Government
in the delivery of such models, it is held that a sub-
contractor alleged to have suffered damages by reason
of such delay cannot recover from the Government.
Petrin, 670.
XLIX. No contractural rights between the subcontractor and
the Government were created by the Government's
contract with the prime contractor, nor can a contract
between them be implied. Id.
L. The "Tucker Act" confers jurisdiction upon the Court
of Claims to hear and determine claims founded
"upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the
Government of the United States." Id.
See also Taxes III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, CI, CII, CXXI,
CXXII, CXXIII; National Industrial Recovery Ad-
ministration Act I, II, III; Federal Farm Board
I, II, III.
CORPORATION ACTIVITIES.
See Taxes XXXIV.
COST OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED.
See Taxes LXVII.
COUNTERCLAIM.
See Taxes LII, CXXIV; U. S. Shipping Board VII.
DAMAGES.
See Contracts VII, XLVIII.
DATE OF EXECUTION.
See Contracts XXXIX.
DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION.
See Taxes LIII.
DEDUCTION FOR LOSSES.
See Taxes LIX, LX, LXI, LXII.
DEDUCTIONS.
See Taxes LXXVIII.
DEFECTS.
See Contracts V.
DEFICIENCIES.
See Taxes XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII.
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS.
See Taxes XXXVI, XXXVII.
DELAY BY GOVERNMENT.
See Contracts XIII, XLVIII.
DELAY BY STRIKE.
See Contracts III.
DELAY IN SIGNING.
See Contracts XXXI.
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.
See National Industrial Recovery Administration Act III.
DEPRECIATION.
See Taxes, LIII, XCII, XCIII, XCIV.
DETERMINATION BY COMMISSIONER.
See Taxes XXXVIII.
DISCRETION OF PRESIDENT.
See National Industrial Recovery Administration Act II.
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
See Taxes XXXV.
DOUBLE SALARY.
See Retired Pay II, III.
DRAWBACK ON EXPORTATIONS.
See Taxes XLII, XLIII, XLIV.
"ENGAGED IN BUSINESS."
See Taxes XXXII, XXXIII.
See Contracts XII; Taxes XIX.
EXECUTION OF CONTRACT.
See Taxes CII.
EXPLICIT LANGUAGE.
See Taxes XXXIX.
EXPORT DRAWBACK.
See Taxes LXIII, LXIV, LXV.
EXPORTED GOODS.
See Taxes XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLI, XLII, XLIII, XLIV,
EXTENDED TIME.
See Taxes LXXXIX.
EXTENSION OF TIME.
See Contracts XL.
FAILURE TO EXHAUST REMEDIES.
See Contracts XIX.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
See Jurisdiction I, II, III.
FEDERAL FARM BOARD.
I. Upon the Commissioner's report, pursuant to the act
of Congress directing an investigation to be made
concerning losses sustained during the stabilization
operations of the Federal Farm Board in 1929 and
1930 by cooperative associations to which loans were
made for the purpose of withholding grain from the
market and for making advances to their members
to stabilize prices, it is found by the Court that there
was no valid contract between the plaintiff and the
Federal Farm Board, as to payment by the Board of
storage and carrying charges incurred by the plaintiff
and hence no legal or equitable obligation on the part
of the United States to reimburse the plaintiff for
any of its losses. South Dakota Wheat Growers, 222.
II. Whether any moral obligation was created is for Con-
gress, not for the Court, to determine. Id.
III. The evidence shows that the endeavor of the Federal
Farm Board, acting through the Stabilization Corpo-
ration, to prevent a decline in the market price of
wheat had a beneficial result. Id.
FINAL DETERMINATION.
See Taxes XCV.
"FIRST RETURN."
See Taxes XC.
FLEET CORPORATION.
See Jurisdiction IV, V, VI; U. S. Shipping Board I, II, VII.
FOREIGN CORPORATION.
See Taxes XXX, XXXI, XXXV.
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER.
See Retired Pay I, II, III, IV, V.
FORGIVENESS OF INDEBTEDNESS.
See Taxes CXIII.
FORM OF CONSENT.
See Taxes XXVII.
See Fraudulent Entry I, II, III, IV; U. S. Shipping Board VII.
FRAUDULENT ENTRY.
I. Certificate of entry on coal land in Alaska having been
obtained by fraud on the Government, as established
by the evidence, and plaintiff having also entered into
FRAUDULENT ENTRY-Continued.
a conspiracy with others to defraud the Government in
connection therewith, it is held that plaintiff is not en-
titled to recover the amount paid for such certificate.
Page, 207.
II. Under the Act of June 16, 1880, which provides that,
when an entry is cancelled by reason of its having been
erroneously allowed, the entryman is entitled to refund
of the purchase money, it is held that where the trans-
action is tainted with fraud on the part of the entry-
man, there is no right of recovery.
III. A plaintiff, or the party setting up a claim under a
statute or otherwise, has a right which he can main-
tain only if he comes into court with clean hands.
IV. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands;
he who has done inequity shall not have equity. Id.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS.
See Contracts XXII.
GIFTS TO TRUST FUNDS.
See Taxes CXIX, CXX.
GOVERNMENT AS A PARTY.
See Taxes VIII.
GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS.
See Taxes CIII, CIV, CV, CVI, CVII.
See Assistant United States Attorney III.
IMPLIED PROVISION.
See Contracts I.
INCREASED COSTS.
See National Industrial Recovery Administration Act IV. V. VI,
VII, VIII.
I. It is held that the enactment of the civilization act of
1889, and the approval of the agreements made there-
under, did not deprive Congress of its lawful plenary
power over the Indian tribes and their properties to
direct changes in the amount, or amounts, of land
to be allotted to the individual Chippewas, and that the
changes which were directed by Congress in the sub-
sequent acts of 1891 and 1904, which the Department
of the Interior effectuated, were lawful; and plaintiffs
were not injured and are not entitled to recover from
the United States the value of the lands additionally
allotted. Chippewa Indians v. United States, 88 C.
Cls. 1, affirmed 307 U. S. 1, cited. Chippewa Indians,
140.
II. Where the President never directed the manner in which
the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota should consent
to the amendatory act of 1891, it is held that the
INDIAN CLAIMS-Continued.
Secretary of the Interior, acting with reference to
a matter appertaining to his especial duty, may be
regarded as having spoken and acted for the President
in the premises. Id.
III. A complete consent to the amendatory act of 1891 was
given by the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota when
they, without exception, accepted their allotments
thereunder. Id.
INDIVIDUAL DONEES.
See Taxes CXX.
INFORMAL CLAIM.
See Taxes CXXVII.
INJUNCTION.
See Taxes XV, XVI.
INSUFFICIENT EQUIPMENT.
See Contracts XXXIII.
INTEREST.
See Contracts XXXVII; Taxes XLVI, XLIX, L, LI, CIII, CIV,
CV, CVI, CVII, CVIII, CIX, CX, CXI, CXII, CXXIV, CXXV,
CXXVII.
I. Where the allegations of the petition are grounded upon
alleged torts of the defendant's officers and agents, and
upon plaintiff's fears that certain other tortious acts
are about to be committed by the defendant that will
cause plaintiff further injury, it is held that the Court
of Claims is without jurisdiction. Paden, 531.
II. Actions sounding in tort are not cognizable in the Court
of Claims. Id.
III. Where the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint in essence is
false imprisonment, it has been held since Spicer's case,
1 C. Cls. 316, that the Court of Claims is without
jurisdiction. Id.
IV. Where plaintiffs have pending in the District Court a
suit against the United States Shipping Board Fleet
Corporation, and the petition in the District Court does
not allege that the cause of action arose against a
person acting or professing to act under the authority
of the United States, and it does not appear that such
defendant could act only under the authority of the
United States, it is held that the Court of Claims has
jurisdiction in the instant case, under Section 154 of
the Judicial Code. First National Steamship, 632.
V. In the case pending in the Court of Claims there can be
no recovery unless agency of the United States on the
part of the Fleet Corporation is established while in
the case pending in the District Court if such agency
is established plaintiffs' action must fail.
|