Fletcher v. Veterans Administration, Civ. A. No. 9234.

• Citation: 103 F. Supp. 654
• Decision Date: 13 February 1952
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 9234.
• Parties: FLETCHER v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

103 F. Supp. 654

FLETCHER v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.

Civ. A. No. 9234.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

February 13, 1952.

Victor Targonski, Wyandotte, Mich., for plaintiff.

Edward T. Kane, U. S. Atty., George F. Petzer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., (Walter H. E. Scott, Chief Atty., George M. Tunison, Atty., Veterans Administration Regional Office, Detroit, Mich., of counsel), for defendant.

THORNTON, District Judge.

The within action involves a bill of complaint on two counts, wherein the defendant moves for summary judgment as to the first count, and moves to dismiss the second count for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The first count embraces an action for breach of contract wherein it is alleged, in substance, that the defendant Veterans Administration entered into a written contract for the training of veteran students under the provisions of Public Law 16, 78th Congress, as amended, and Public Law 346, 78th Congress, as amended, and that on the 8th day of March, 1950, without prior notice, the Veterans Administration terminated the training of all students under Public Law 16 at the plaintiff's school, the Union School of Refrigeration, one of the parties to the aforementioned contract, and that this interruption was had without the required notice of termination provided for in Article 6 of the contract between the parties, thereby resulting in a breach of contract which prevented the plaintiff from collecting moneys properly due him under the contract when he stood ready, willing and able to perform in accordance with its provisions.

In conjunction with the foregoing claim, the plaintiff bases jurisdiction in this Court on the following allegations:

"(a) Jurisdiction for this action is conferred upon the Court by virtue of the fact that an agency of the United States government is defendant and a Federal question is involved based upon an interpretation of the constitution of the United States of America, the statutes creating the Veterans Administration and the regulations issued by such agency as hereinafter more fully appears. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of three thousand dollars.

"(b) Jurisdiction for this case is founded on the existence of a question arising under the various Federal laws provided for the creation and operation of the Veterans Administration, an agency of the U. S. government, and the regulations issued by such agency pursuant to the statutes, and further involves the interpretation of contracts entered into by the Veterans Administration based upon such statutes and regulations."

Count I is devoid of any allegation that the Veterans Administration has relinquished the right to immunity from suit on contracts relating to education and training.

Congress has vested in the Vetererans Administration the exclusive right to determine what disabled veterans are eligible for training, and in what institution, and also the right to withdraw such students. The exercise of this right is not reviewable by a court of the United States, as evidenced by Section 5 of Public Law 2, 73rd Congress, March 20, 1933, 38 U.S.C.A. § 705 which provides as follows: "All decisions rendered by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs under the provisions of sections 701-703, 704, 705, 706, 707-715, 716-721 of this title and sections 30a, 485 of Title 5 or the regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be final and conclusive on all questions of law and fact, and no other official or court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to review by mandamus or otherwise any such decision." This statute was incorporated in the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, Public Law 346, by Section...