INDEX DIGEST

ABORIGINAL OCCUPANCY.

See Indian Claims IV.

ACCOUNT STATED.

See Taxes XV, XXXVII.

ACCRUAL OF CLAIM.

See Contracts XXIV, XXV.

ADDITIONAL COST.

See Contracts I.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.

See Taxes XXIII.

ADVANCES TO ANOTHER.

See Contracts XVI.

AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

I. Where plaintiff entered into certain contracts with the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, a Delaware corporation created under authority granted to the President by the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and continued by subsequent congressional enactments, it is held that the corporation is an agency of the Government. John Morrell & Co., 167. II. Where the contract itself did not disclose the fact that the United States was the principal, and the corporation was merely the agent, this is held to be immaterial. Id. III. The statutes and the purpose for which the corporation was organized disclosed the agency. Id.

IV. When an agent, being duly authorized, acts on behalf of an undisclosed principal, the right of the other party to a contract to enforce the contract against the undisclosed principal is well settled. Id.

AGENTS OF VESSELS, NOTICE TO.

See Immigration Act I, II.

AMENDMENT TO CLAIM.

See Taxes XLVIII, XLIX.

APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

See Pay and Allowances XVIII.

559

ARMY OFFICER, PROPERTY OF.

I. Where Army officer, on duty at Jeffersonville Quarter-
master Depot, Jeffersonville, Ind., occupied a house
in Jeffersonville because public quarters were not avail-
able, and he was paid rental allowance for said quarters,
and where by proper orders he was on duty during the
time the Ohio river was in flood, January 1937, and
was engaged in saving human life and the property
of the United States, it is held that under the Act of
March 4, 1921, he is entitled to recover for loss and
destruction of his own property in said house by the
flood. Jonitz, 155.

II. The cases of Andrews, 52 C. Cls. 373; Curran, 65 C. Cls.
26, and Morrison, 87 C. Cls. 606, distinguished. Id.
III. The requirement of the statute that the loss of personal
property shall be "in the military service" was met in
the instant case since plaintiff was engaged (1) in
saving human life, (2) in saving Government property
and (3) in military duties in connection with the
disaster which caused the loss of his personal property.
Id.

IV. Where plaintiff's property was not in public quarters,
to which he was entitled under the law, because public
quarters were not available, it is held that the require-
ment of the Act that the private property be "in the
military service" was met. Purssell, 46 C. Cls. 509,
cited. Id.

V. The act contains no language which can be construed
as meaning that unless the property is within the
boundaries of a Government reservation it is not in
the military service. Id.

VI. It is held that in the Act Congress did not intend that
officers whose property is lost while stored in public
quarters shall be compensated, but that officers whose
property is lost while stored in private quarters, when
no such public quarters are available, shall not be paid,
when it is affirmatively shown that the officer was on
duty under the conditions prescribed by the Act. Id.
VII. The criterion is the character of the property, the con-
ditions under which it is lost and the assignment of
the officer at the time; not where the property is
located. Id.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPROVAL BY.

See Title To Land.

BASIC PAY ACT.

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

BENEFICIARIES, POWER TO SELECT.

See Taxes IV.

BENEFICIARIES, RIGHTS OF.

See Taxes XLVI, XLVII.
BEQUESTS TO CHARITY.

See Taxes, I, II, III, IV, V, VI.
BEQUESTS UNDER WILL.

See Taxes V.

BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.

See Taxes XXVIII, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXV, XXXVI.
BREACH BY GOVERNMENT.

See Contracts XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII.

CANCELLATION.

See Contracts XI.

CAPITAL STOCK TAX.

See Taxes XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLI.

CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT:

I. Where the provisions of the Civil Service Retirement Act
have been complied with and the rights of the plaintiff
have been fully exercised, it is held that his reduction
in grade and retirement were matters solely within the
discretion of the authorized administrative officers.
Bennett, 322.

II. Courts are not for the purpose of passing on the com-
petency of employes in the Government service. Id.
III. Delay of more than three years from the time plaintiff
was retired in filing petition constitutes laches. Id.

CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS.

See Land Grant Deductions.

CLAIM FOR REFUND.

See Taxes XI, XII, XIII, XXIV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXIV,
XXXV, XLVIII, XLIX.

CLUB DUES.

See Taxes LIII.

COMMISSIONER, CONCLUSION OF, REVERSED.

See Taxes XIV.

COMMISSIONER, DUTY OF.

See Taxes VIII.

COMMISSIONER, FINAL DETERMINATION BY.
See Taxes X.

COMPETENCY OF EMPLOYES.

See Civil Service Retirement II.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.

See Taxes III.
CONSTITUTIONALITY.

See Taxes XLV.

CONTRACTS.

1:

I. Where contractor, in reconstructing a Navy Yard pier,
was required to furnish longer piles than provided
for in the specifications which were part of the con-
tract, and where the contract provided for an adjust-
ment of price should a change be made in the contract,
it is held that contractor is entitled to recover for the
additional cost. Triest & Earle, 5.

II. Where contractor in his bid for erection of a post office
made a deduction for the salvage value to him of the
buildings on the site and where under the order of the
court in condemnation proceedings said buildings were
awarded to the owners thereof, and by them removed, it
is held that the failure of the Government to deliver
the buildings for demolition and removal was a breach
of the contract and the contractor is entitled to recover
for the fair salvage value of the structures. G. Schwartz
and Company, 82.

III. Where contractor was delayed in the completion of the
work by the defendant, and put to extra expense, the
rule is well settled that the Government is liable. Id.
IV. Where contractor was put to expense for removal of
plaster and debris from the site, left in the cellars of
the buildings demolished and removed by the owners,
it is held that there can be no recovery since contractor
was required by the specifications to remove all rubbish
and debris; the situation is not changed by the fact
that the owners, rather than the contractor, demolished
and removed the buildings. Id.

V. It is held that the evidence sustains the Government's
contention that all the items upon which plaintiff bases
its claim of extra work and extra costs were specified
as a part of the work required by plaintiff's contract
with the Government and were shown by the drawings
and specifications. McHugh, 94.

VI. Where subcontractor entered upon the site of the work
and performed certain work under its subcontract be-
fore the formal contract between the prime contractor
and the Government had been executed, and such con-
tract was in fact never executed, it is held that the
subcontractor has no claim against the Government.
Herfuth, 122.

VII. Expectation of payment for work performed by a sub-
contractor does not create an implied contract, even
when the structure is used by the Government. Id.

CONTRACTS--Continued.

VIII. Where contractors in the construction of the substruc-
ture of a bridge over the Cape Cod Canal, relied upon
borings made by the Government, and made no borings
themselves, to determine the subsurface conditions at
the site of the work, it is held that the proof does not
support the claim that the Government's engineers pos-
sessed superior knowledge as to said conditions which
was withheld from plaintiffs nor were plaintiffs misled
as to said conditions. Pertinent cases cited and ap-
plied or differentiated. Blakeslee, 226.

IX. There was no knowledge of impediments to performance
known to the defendant which was withheld from
plaintiffs and no misrepresentation of conditions exist-
ing at the site of the work. Id.

X. The defendant having furnished to plaintiffs all the in-
formation in its possession in respect to subsurface
conditions, without misrepresentation or concealment,
is held to be not liable for any loss incurred by plain-
tiffs in the performance of the work. Id.

XI. Where contract between plaintiff and the Government,
represented by the Quartermaster Corps, U. S. A.,
called for delivery of coal within a stated period in
accordance with schedule of delivery calls to be fur-
nished to plaintiff and where contract also provided
that at expiration of period any undelivered coal not
covered by schedule of delivery calls would be auto-
matically cancelled, it is held that this provision had
no reference to the termination of the contract under
Section 2, which provided that the contract might
be terminated at any time by the Quartermaster Gen-
eral, upon notice, in the public interest. Cherokee
Fuel, 279.

XII. The entry by the supply officer on printed forms of
“Schedule of Delivery" calls of the total tonnage of
coal specified in the contract was not a "Schedule of
Delivery" call for the entire amount of coal. Id.
XIII. The schedule of delivery of the coal, as specified by the
supply officer, was the important and controlling fea-
ture of the contract. Id.

XIV. It is held that the facts show that the Government
accepted and paid for all coal for which the supply
officer furnished the plaintiff with schedules of de-
livery. Id.

XV. It is held that the evidence shows that the Quarter-
master General terminated the contract under and in