813

ANGLO-CHINESE SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., PETITIONER v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 587-53]

[130 C. Cls. 361; 349 U. S. 938.]

Jurisdiction; use of seized vessel by Allied Powers in Japan. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 23, 1955.

WILLIAM A. BERRY, PETITIONER, v.
THE UNITED STATES

[No. 50-52]

[130 C. Cls. 33; 349 U. S. 938.]

Pay and allowances; date of promotion fixes date of higher pay. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 23, 1955.

CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING CORP., PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 244-54]

[130 C. Cls. 504; 349 U. S. 939.]

Patents; prohibiting provisions of Atomic Energy Act. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 23, 1955.

131 C. Cls.

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v.
JAMES JOSEPH ROBERSON

[No. 158-52]

[129 C. Cls. 581; 349 U. S. 954.]

Unjust conviction and imprisonment. Recovery allowed under Act of June 25, 1948.

Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court June 6, 1955.

JOHN L. BISHOP, ET AL., PETITIONER,

v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 598-53]

[130 C. Cls. 198; 349 U. S. 955.]

Eminent domain. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court June 6, 1955.

INDEX DIGEST

ACCOUNT STATED.

See Jurisdiction VIII.

ACCUMULATED LEAVE.

See Suit For Salary XII, XIII, XIV.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
See Contracts I, II, III.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.

See Pay and Allowances IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X; Suit For
Salary I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.

ADMIRALTY ACTION.

See Jurisdiction I, II, III, IV, V.

AIR CORPS RESERVE OFFICER.

See Pay and Allowances XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII,
XXXIX.

APPROPRIATIONS, INSUFFICIENT.

See Report to Congress IX, X, XI, XII.

ARMY REGULATION INVALID.

See Pay and Allowances XLIII.

CAPITAL ASSETS.

See Taxes XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII,
XXXIX.

CAREER COMPENSATION ACT.

See Pay and Allowances I, II, III, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV,
XVI, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV.

CHANGE ORDER.

See Contracts LIX, LX, LXI, LXII, LXIII, LXIV, LXV,
LXVI, LXVII, LXVIII, LXIX.

COMMISSIONER, DETERMINATION BY.

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

COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

See Contracts XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV,
XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL; Jurisdiction I,
II, III, IV, V.

CONDITIONS UNEXPECTED.

See Contracts LIV, LV, LVI, LVII, LVIII.

CONTRACT APPEALS, BOARD OF.

See Contracts XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII,
XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX.

821

131 C. Cls.

CONTRACTING OFFICER.

See Contracts LXVI, LXVII.
CONTRACTS.

I. In December 1940, the plaintiff, Willamette, an
Oregon corporation, was awarded a cost-plus-a-
fixed-fee contract for the construction of two mine
layers. In order to secure the required performance
bond, the plaintiff entered into a joint venture
agreement with Guy F. Atkinson Company, of
which agreement the defendant was duly and fully
notified, verbally and in writing. In the perform-
ance of the contract, for the privilege of doing
business in the State of Oregon, the joint venturers
each paid the required State excise tax. In settle-
ment of the contract the defendant refunded to
Willamette the amount of taxes paid by it, as a
necessary expense of performance, but refused to
reimburse the amount paid by Atkinson on the
ground that Atkinson was not a party to the con-
tract. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to
recover. Hamlin, Trustee, 25.

United States 70 (5)

II. Under the terms of the joint venture the contract was
to be signed by Willamette only but the defendant
was fully advised of the terms of the joint venture
and of the fact that the contract was to be performed
by Willamette and by Atkinson as coadventurers.
Id.

III. It is held that the administrative decision denying
Atkinson's claim for refund of the excise taxes is
not conclusive on the United States Court of Claims,
where the question is not one of fact but of law. Id.
United States 73 (14).

IV. Where plaintiff sues for damages for breach of its
contract with the Government and where the de-
fendant has filed a counterclaim alleging violations
by the plaintiff of the provisions of the Walsh-Healey
Act under seventeen contracts with the Govern-
ment; and where the plaintiff asserts that defend-
ant's counterclaim is barred by the statute of
limitations of the Portal to Portal Act; plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment is denied. The
counterclaim is treated as a defensive pleading.
Ready-Mix Concrete Co., 204.

Limitation of Actions 41.

131 C. Cls.

CONTRACTS-Continued

V. Under Section 6 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947,
the cause of action accrued when the violation of the
Walsh-Healey Act occurred. See Unexcelled Chem-
ical Corp. v. United States, 345 U. S. 59. Id.

VI. The limitations in the Portal to Portal Act bar the
defendant from filing a counterclaim in the United
States Court of Claims just as effectively as they
bar an independent suit in a District Court of the
United States under the Walsh-Healey Act. Id.
Limitation of Actions

41.

VII. In the enactment of Section 1503 of Title 28, U. S.
Code, Congress did not contemplate a claim by the
United States which might have enough validity to
justify its use defensively but not enough validity
to use as the basis for a judgment against the plain-
tiff. Id.

VIII. Under Section 36 of the Walsh-Healey Act which gives
the United States the right to withhold any amounts
due the United States for violations of the Walsh-
Healey Act on any contracts subject to that Act,
it is held that the United States has the right to
withhold money owing under the contract in suit, to
compensate for the violation of any such contracts.
Id.

IX. It is held that the defendant's counterclaim in the
instant case will be treated as a defensive pleading,
asserting merely the right to withhold the amount
claimed [from any amount to which plaintiff may
be found to be entitled for the breach of its con-
tract.
Courts

Id.
450.

X. Where plaintiff, an attorney, made a contract with
the Army Corps of Engineers to prepare and furnish
approximately 3,000 certificates of title to approxi-
mately 250,000 acres of land; and where plaintiff
was called on to furnish only 1,651 titles, covering
less than 200,000 acres; and where plaintiff sues to
recover damages by reason of the loss claimed to
have been incurred by reason of the reduction in
number of titles and by reason of the modification
of the contract of which he was not notified; defend-