Page images
PDF
EPUB

CASES DISMISSED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON MOTION OF PARTIES, OR OF THE COURT FOR NONPROSECUTION

[blocks in formation]

95 C. Cls.

Cases Pertaining To Refund of Payments Made Under Marketing

Agreement

ON FEBRUARY 2, 1942

45060. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons,

Inc. 45061. Brown-Forman Distillery Com

pany. 45065. A. Overholt & Co., Inc. 45066. National Distillers Products

Corporation. 45068. Commercial Solvents Corpora

tion. 45069. Glenmore Distilleries Company. 45071. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc. 45072. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc.

45074. The Old Quaker Co.
45075. The Frank L. Wight Distilling

Co.
45076. Jos. S. Finch & Co.
45077. Geo. T. Stagg Co.
45079. Schenley Distillers Corpora-

tion. 45083. The Baltimore Pure Rye Dis

tilling Co. 45084, Bardstown Distillery, Inc. 45086. Century Distilling Company.

Cases Involving Government Contracts

ON JANUARY 5, 1942 44675. Robert C. Sproul, Trustee, etc. 44679. Robert C. Sproul, Trustee, etc. 44676. Robert C. Sproul, Trustee, etc. 44680. Robert C. Sproul, Trustee, etc. 44677. Robert C. Sproul, Trustee, etc. 44726. William F. Allen et al. 44678. Robert C. Sproul, Trustee, etc.

Cases Pertaining To Difference In Carrying Charges and Operating

Costs; Federal Farm Board

ON JANUARY 5, 1942

(See p. 472, ante) Congressional No. 17750. Alabama Cotton Cooperative Assn.

17751. California Cotton Cooperative Assn., Ltd.
17752. Georgia Cotton Growers Cooperative Assn.
17753. Louisiana Cotton Cooperative Assn.
17754. Mid-South Cotton Growers Assn.
17755. Mississippi Cooperative Cotton Assn. et al.
17756. North Carolina Cotton Growers Cooperative Assn.
17757. Oklahoma Cotton Growers Assn.
17758. S. C. Cotton Cooperative Assn.
17760. Texas Cotton Cooperative Assn.

Cases Pertaining To The Transportation of Troops

ON DECEMBER 1, 1941

44654. The Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
44682. Webster and Chapman, Trustees

Cases Involving Infringement of Patents

ON DECEMBER 1, 1941 43604. Myers Arms Corporation

95 C. Cls.

Miscellaneous

ON DECEMBER 1, 1941 44009. Four Wheel Drive Auto Company 45224. Roche, Connell & Laub Construction Co.

ON JANUARY 5, 1942

45266. Ruth Widen

ON FEBRUARY 2, 1942

45328. Swift & Company 45329. Swift & Company

ON MARCH 2, 1942 45013. Great Northern Railway Co. 45017. Banks Business College 45271. Cannon Mills Company

REPORT OF DECISIONS

OF

THE SUPREME COURT

IN COURT OF CLAIMS CASES

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. THE KAN

SAS FLOUR MILLS CORPORATION

[No. 43919)

(92 C. Cls. 390; 314 U. S. 212]

Certiorari (313 U. S. 554) to review a decision of the Court of Claims, following the decision in The IsmertHincke Milling Company v. The United States, 90 C. Cls. 27; the Court of Claims in the instant case awarding damages to the flour mills company on a contract for the sale of flour and bran, and denying the right of the United States to offset payments made by it on earlier contracts to cover processing taxes which were subsequently held to be unconstitutional so that the vendor was not obliged to pay them.

The decision of the Court of Claims in the case of Kansas Flour Mills Corporation was reversed on December 41, the Supreme Court deciding:

Contracts for the purchase of flour by the Government included as part of the price any federal tax theretofore imposed by Congress applicable to the material purchased, and provided that if any processing or other tax were imposed or "changed by Congress” after the date set for opening of bids and were paid to the Government by the contractor on the supplies contracted for, then the price would be "increased or decreased" accordingly. Held, that the subsequent decision in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, adjudging the processing tax void, and the recognition of that holding through provisions of the Revenue Act of 1936,

95 C. Cls.

amounted to a "change” of the vendor's tax liability made “by Congress," within the meaning of the contract, and that amounts paid by the Government as part of the contract price to offset processing taxes presumptively payable by the vendor but which because of that decision the vendor escaped, were recoverable by

the United States. Mr. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, as follows:

Between May 1935 and January 6, 1936, the respondent entered into eight contracts for the sale of flour to the United States. Deliveries were duly made and the contract price was paid.

Each of the eight contracts provided :

“Prices set forth herein include any Federal tax heretofore imposed by the Congress which is applicable to the material purchased under this contract. If any sales tax, processing tax, adjustment charge or other taxes or charges are imposed or changed by the Congress after the date set for the opening of the bid upon which this contract is based and made applicable directly upon the production, manufacture, or sale of the supplies covered by this contract, and are paid to the Government by the contractor on the articles or supplies herein contracted for, then the prices named in this contract will be increased or decreased accordingly, and any amount due the contractor as a result of such change will be charged to the Government and entered on vouchers (or invoices) as separate items." Under the terms of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, processing taxes were due, in respect of the flour sold, aggregating $28,419.20.

In 1936 the respondent entered into four contracts for the sale of flour and bran to the United States for a total price of $23,288.11. The commodities were delivered and vouchers for the purchase price tendered to the General Accounting Office. Payment was withheld by the Comptroller General, who notified the respondent that the Government had overpaid it in the sum of $28,419.20.

The respondent had obtained an injunction against the collection of any processing taxes from it and, as a result of the decision in United States v. Butler, 297

1 U. S. C. Supp. V, Tit. 7, § 609.

« PreviousContinue »