104 C. Cls. Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 15, 1945. Rehearing denied November 13, 1945. THE CHICKASAW NATION, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES [No. K-544] [103 C. Cls. 1; 326 U. S. —] Certiorari to review a judgment of the Court of Claims in a suit brought under special jurisdictional acts, as amended, for claims arising out of Indian treaties and agreements or Acts of Congress relating to Indian affairs; application of gratuities as offsets. The judgment of the Court of Claims was reversed November 5, 1945, and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court, as follows: Per curiam: The Chickasaw Nation asks certiorari to review a judgment of the Court of Claims, 103 Ct. Cls. 1, dismissing its suit for moneys allegedly owing to it by the United States. Some of petitioner's claims were denied below, but others, totalling $22,858.78, were allowed. Against this amount the court below, applying section 2 of the Act of August 12, 1935, 49 Stat. 571, 596, offset a like amount which the court found to have been gratuitously expended by the United States for the benefit of the Nation. The findings listed various items of gratuity expenditures totalling $69,920.39. But the judgment did not specify which of these items were being applied as offsets to the claims allowed. Instead, all of the offset items were treated as commingled in a single gratuity fund upon which the Government might draw for the discharge of its obligations, as upon a bank account. In Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286, 308, we pointed out that the gratuity items which have been used as statutory offsets to Indian claims against the Government should be specifically designated in the judgment. When that course is not followed, 104 C. Cls. Indian claimants desirous of challenging the allowed offsets on appeal must be prepared to attack all the items which make up the fund, however much it may exceed their claims. Moreover, such a judgment, by leaving unidentified the particular gratuities which have been applied as offsets, necessarily adjudicates the validity for that purpose of all, since it makes all proportionately applicable as offsets. There is no reason why Indian claimants should be required in some subsequent suit to meet the defense that gratuity items whose offset was not necessary to the result in an earlier case have nevertheless been there finally adjudicated to be valid offsets, or why this Court, in reviewing the earlier judgment, should be required to pass on the validity of such items as offsets. When specified items of gratuity are allocated as offsets, other items, included in the findings but not applied as offsets, do not affect the judgment, their validity as offsets need not be reviewed on appeal, and they create no estoppel for future cases. The gratuity items included among the findings below as available for offset are there described as "incorporated by reference" from findings in a "companion case" decided by the Court of Claims on the same day (Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 103 Ct. Cls. 45, petition for certiorari denied October 15, 1945, No. 169 this term, infra p. —), in which none of the gratuities found were used, nothing having been found due from the United States on the claims there advanced. The petition before us makes no objection to this procedure, and in view of the failure to apply such items as offsets in the companion case, we assume that their validity as such was open to objection in the present suit. We only conclude that the judgment here should be in such form as not to compel unnecessary adjudication of such objections on appeal, or unnecessarily to foreclosure consideration of such objections to the use of these items as offsets in some future litigation. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, limited to the question whether the particular gratuity items necessarily used as offsets should be designated by the judgment. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion. 104 C. Cls. THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. HORACE HAVEMEYER [No. 45775] [103 C. Cls. 564; 326 U. S. —] Gift tax; method of determining fair market value of large blocks of stock; evidence as to fair market value. Decided April 2, 1945, judgment for plaintiff. Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 5, 1945. ALLEN POPE, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES [No. 45704] [100 C. Cls. 375, 104 C. Cls. 496; 323 U. S. 1; 326 U. S. —] Government contract; decision upon remand by Supreme Court holding that Special Jurisdictional Act created new causes of action; judgment awarded in accordance therewith. Decided October 1, 1945; judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court January 2, 1946. Rehearing denied February 4, 1946. INDEX DIGEST ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938. See National Industrial Recovery Act I, II, III. ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1941. See Requisition of Goods I, II. ADJUSTED VALUE. See Taxes XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII. AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT. I. Where it is shown that plaintiffs wrongfully and in violation of their agreements under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and the Agricultural Conservation Program of the Government during the years 1933 through 1936 withheld from their tenants and sharecroppers their proportionate parts of Government payments; and where it is also shown that certain of such payments were made to plaintiffs under mistakes as to the extent of plaintiffs' compliance with these programs, induced in some instances by false representations on the part of plaintiffs; it is held that the defendant is entitled to offset a portion of the amounts so paid to plaintiffs against a payment claimed to be due to plaintiffs on account of their compliance, on their lands, with the 1938 Agricultural Conservation Program under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, and plaintiffs' demurrer is therefore overruled. Crain and Wilson (No. 45779), 713. II. Where the Secretary of Agriculture on April 9, 1941, after an investigation, determined that in connection with certain transactions relating to the contracts and agreements under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 plaintiffs had wrongfully and unlawfully retained for their own use, in breach of their express promises, large sums due to them for the benefit of others and had made false representations to defendant, upon which defendant had relied; it is held that 861 AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT-Continued. 104 C. Cls. defendant's plea alleges a cause of action for AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM. I. Where defendant's counterclaim alleges and sets |