Horowitz v. United States, 74
| Citation | 45 S.Ct. 344,267 U.S. 458,69 L.Ed. 736 |
| Decision Date | 09 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 74,74 |
| Parties | HOROWITZ v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Raymond M. Hudson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
The Attorney General and Mr. Merrill E. Otis, of St. Joseph, Mo., for the United States.
This action was brought by Horowitz, under the Tucker Act,1 to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract relating to the purchase of silk from the Ordance Department. The petition was dismissed, on demurrer, for failure to state a cause of action. 58 Ct. Cl. 189.
The petition alleges, in substance, these facts: On December 20, 1919, the claimant, a resident of New York, submitted a bid for certain Habutai silk offered for sale by the New York Ordnance Salvage Board. At that time the 'Chief of the Textile Division of New York City,' agreed, 'on behalf of such Board,' that the claimant would be given an opportunity to re-sell the silk before completing the payment of the purchase price, and that the 'departments of the government having jurisdiction in matters of this kind' would ship the silk—which was then in Washington—within a day or two after shipping instructions were given. On December 22 he was notified by the Board that the sale of the silk to him had been 'approved'; and he thereupon paid part of the purchase price. On January 30, 1920, he sold the silk to a silk company in New York. On February 16 he paid the balance of the purchase price, and wrote the Board to ship the silk at once, by freight, to the silk company. Two days later he was notified by the Board that it had received the shipping instructions and had ordered the silk to be shipped. Thereafter the price of silk declined greatly in the New York market, until March 4. On that date the 'claimant learned * * * that the silk was still in Washington, and had not been shipped because the Government through one of its agencies, the U. S. Railroad Administration, had prior to March 1, 1920, placed an embargo on shipments of silk by freight, and the shipment of Habutai silk for claimant had been held up.' Afterwards the Government shipped the silk to the consignee, by express. It arrived in New York 'on or about March 12.' The consignee then refused to accept delivery on account of the fall in prices. And 'by reason of the Government's breach of the contract and agreement in placing an embargo, and failing to ship the silk either by express or freight prior to March 4, 1920, the price of silk having declined, the claimant was forced to sell the said silk for $10,811.84 less than the price the consignee had agreed to pay for same had it been delivered in time.'
The petition alleges that the claimant is entitled to recover from the United States the said sum of $10,811.84, 'for and on account of the violation of the said agreement'; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway Farms, Inc. v. U.S.
...their property. The validity of embargoes as congressionally authorized executive action is hornbook law. Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 45 S.Ct. 344, 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925); The Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 550, 20 L.Ed. 287 (1870); Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.......
-
Sun Oil Co. v. United States
...of had public and general applicability, the usual touchstone for sovereign act applicability. See Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 460, 45 S.Ct. 344, 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925); Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 956, 967, 173 Ct.Cl. 180, 196 (1965). In this case, howev......
-
Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. U.S.
...as sovereign.'" Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1997) (quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461, 45 S.Ct. 344, 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925)). The doctrine is based on the theory that "[t]he two characters which the government possesses as a contract......
-
Barcellos and Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist.
...v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 732-33, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 2719-20, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1984).12 See Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461, 45 S.Ct. 344, 345, 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925) (noting that "United States when sued as a contractor cannot be held liable for an obstruction to the performa......
-
Two wrongs make a wrong: a challenge to plea bargaining and collateral consequence statutes through their integration.
...Easterbrook, supra note 1, at 1974; Scott & Stuntz, supra note 1, at 1911-13. Several examples are discussed infra Part III.A. (25) 267 U.S. 458 (26) Id. at 461. (27) See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS [section] 154 (1981). (28) As with any contract, the issue of whether there is a b......