ernment ordered from a packer a quantity of four particular pork products for war purposes. The packer refused delivery at ceiling prices and the products were seized by the Government. Under a statutory procedure, an administrative agency awarded compensation at ceiling prices; this was refused; and the packer was paid half the amount due at ceiling prices on account. In a suit by the packer for "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment, the Court of Claims found as a fact that the replacement cost of the seized products at the time and place of the taking was substantially in excess of the ceiling prices and awarded judgment for the difference between the amount paid and what it found to be the replacement value of such products. The packer failed to prove that it has suffered any actual loss on the particular products seized. On appeal to this Court, held: Judgment reversed with directions to enter judgment for the unpaid balance of the value of the products at ceiling prices, with interest on the total value at ceiling prices from the date of the taking to the date of the final administrative award.
Mr. Justice Reed, with whom Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Murphy joined, filed an opinion concurring in the conclusion stated by the court but not concurring in the reasoning by which the result was reached.
Mr. Justice Rutledge also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment of the court and stating that he was "in partial agreement with both groups".
Mr. Justice Jackson, with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joined, filed a dissenting opinion, holding:
We think the Court of Claims made no error of law in thinking that the controlled market price for voluntary sales was not the measure of just compensation for the seized pork chops. Limiting our review to the scope which Congress has authorized, we find no error in its calculation of just compensation for the purposes of complying with the constitutional requirements.
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION.
See Suit for Salary II.
AGENCY.
See Contracts LII.
AIRCRAFT PARTS.
See Patents I, II, III, IV.
AIRPLANE ACCESSORIES.
See Patents I, II, III.
APPROPRIATIVE RIGHTS.
See Eminent Domain VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV.
ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM.
I. An assignment of claim under Section 17 of the
Contract Settlement Act, for reimbursement of
preparatory expenditures in anticipation of a Gov-
ernment contract, is held to be invalid under Section
3477 R. S. Hodes, 370.
II. An assignment of claim is null and void under Section
3477 R. S. (31 U. S. Code 203) unless made with
certain formalities and after the claim has been
allowed, the amount due ascertained, and a warrant
issued for its payment. Id.
"AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARD."
See Eminent Domain XV, XVI, XVII.
CEILING PRICE.
See Eminent Domain XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV.
CHANGE IN PLANS.
See Contracts LVII, LVIII.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS.
See Taxes VII, VIII, IX.
CITIZENSHIP.
I. Children born in Cuba, out of wedlock, whose father,
an American citizen, has formally, under oath,
acknowledged their paternity, are American citi-
zens under the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797),
amending Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes,
and were on July 6, 1936, entitled to admission at
a Territorial port of the United States without
passports or immigration visas. Compagnie Gen-
erale Transatlantique, 601.
II. Where in July 1936 a ship belonging to plaintiff trans-
ported from Cuba to San Juan, Puerto Rico, four
children born out of wedlock in Cuba; and where
the children were accompanied by their father, a
citizen of Puerto Rico, who held a passport but
none of the children possessed a passport or an
immigration visa; and where on May 23, 1936, the
father had registered the birth of each of the
children before a Municipal Judge in charge of the
Civil Registry in Santiago, Cuba, acknowledging
under oath the paternity of each child; and where
the children were excluded from admission to the
United States, including Puerto Rico, as "non-
quota immigrants not in possession of unexpired
immigration visas"; it is held that plaintiff is en-
title to recover the fine of $4,000, plus a refund of
passage money, imposed by the Immigration Serv-
ice on the ground there had been a violation of the
provisions of Section 16 of the Act of May 26, 1924
(43 Stat. 163).
III. The action of the Secretary of Labor in approving on
appeal the fine sought to be recovered in the instant
case was not final, since the Secretary misinter-
preted the pertinent statute.
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
See Requisition of Vessels II, III.
CONTRACTING OFFICER.
I. Where the plaintiff, in 1942, entered into an Army
contract for the delivery of canned blackberries;
and where on account of crop failures, due to un-
favorable weather in the States in which the plaintif
could reasonably secure its supply of berries for
canning, plaintiff was unable to complete the per-
formance of the contract; it is held that the findings
of the contracting officer, to the effect that the
failure to complete performance of the contract was
due to an unforeseeable cause without fault or neg-
ligence of the contractor, were correct and binding
and that under the terms of the contract the con-
tractor was thereby relieved of any liability for ex-
cess costs incurred by the defendant because of con-
tractor's inability to complete the contract, and
plaintiff is entitled to recover. Mitchell Canneries,
Inc., 228.
II. Under the decisions of the Court of Claims and the
Supreme Court, the findings of fact of a contracting
officer are binding upon both the Government and
the contractor if there is no showing of fraud, gross
CONTRACTING OFFICER-Continued
error or arbitrary action by the contracting officer
amounting to bad faith.
III. Where the contracting officer acted fairly and im-
partially and there is substantial evidence to support
his findings, they should not be reversed by the
court. In the instant case, upon the evidence ad-
duced, the court finds no evidence of fraud, gross
error or arbitrariness on the part of the contracting
officer but, on the contrary, it is found that he acted
fairly and impartially and that the evidence upon
which he based his findings was substantial. Id.
See also Contracts VII, IX, X, XI, XX, XXXIV,
XXXV, XXXVII.
I. Under a contract with the Government for the con-
struction of temporary housing and other facilities
for the Mobile Air Depot Groups under the standard
form of construction contract where plaintiff sues
for additional compensation in connection with six
unit price items involving an interpretation of the
contract, and under an additional item for excess
cost resulting from a written change which re-
quired plaintiff to construct a portion of 27 build-
ings by "opposite hand"; and where plaintiff duly
protested and appealed and its claims were denied;
it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover on items
2, 3, and 4 of its claim and is not entitled to recover
on items 1, 5, 6, and 7. Pfotzer, Copartners, 184.
II. Claim No. 1. Where plaintiff produced and placed
reinforced concrete for elevated floor slabs on wood
subfloors in portions of the first floor of certain
buildings and claimed payment therefor as "con-
crete for floor slabs" under unit price bid in addi-
tion to the lump sum contract price for each of the
buildings in which floor slabs were placed; and where
the contracting officer and the head of the Depart-
ment interpreted the contract as providing that
this item of concrete work was to be included in
and compensated for by payment of the lump sum
price bid for each building; it is held that since
compensation for the work involved was included
in the lump sum price for each building by a pro-
vision in the bid form, which was a part of the
specifications and therefore a part of the contract,
plaintiff is not entitled to recover on this claim.
Id.
|