Kunhardt Co v. United States
| Citation | 45 S.Ct. 158,69 L.Ed. 428,266 U.S. 537 |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 141,141 |
| Parties | KUNHARDT & CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Raymond M. Hudson, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the United States.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing, on demurrer, a petition filed by Kunhardt & Co., Inc., against the United States, 58 Ct. Cl. 718.
The material facts alleged in the petition and shown by the accompanying exhibits, are these: The claimant is a New York corporation, engaged in importing. On September 10, 1918, the Director of Aircraft Production issued to it a purchase order for the growth of 50,000 to 75,000 bushels of castor beans, to be delivered by the claimant, at a specified price, at Puerto Cortez, Honduras, or, at the option of the Government, at a specified higher price, at any United States port on the Gulf of Mexico. On September 16 this order was incorporated in a contract between the United States and the claimant. In October the Government officers insisted that as they were having difficulty in finding transportation and the claimant had a schooner, the Herbert May, it should provide transportation for the beans from Honduras and Guatemala to New Orleans—as it could be required to do under the option reserved respecting the place of delivery. The claimant, having no use for the schooner, was then negotiating its sale and had received an offer of $75,000. But as this was the only means of transportation available to it, the claimant, it is alleged, was 'forced' to retain possession of the schooner, and had it prepared for the trip to the West Indies. On November 6 the Director of Aircraft Production issued to the claimant a second purchase order for 75,000 to 100,000 bushels of castor beans, to be grown or purchased in Honduras or Guatemala and delivered at New Orleans, at a specified price. This order was incorporated in a second contract between the United States and the claimant, dated November 12, although executed later. This contract contained a provision that if the Director of Aircraft Production should terminate it prior to completion, the United States should, among other things, pay the claimant 'on account of depreciation of plant, facilities and equipment' provided by the claimant for the performance of the contract, the amount by which their cost to the claimant should exceed their fair market value at the time of such termination, as determined by three appraisers. On November 14 the Director of Aircraft Production suspended the second contract, and a few days later canceled both contracts. The claimant, then having no use for the schooner, sold it for $40,000, the highest price obtainable, thus, it is alleged, suffering 'a loss from depreciation in the value of the schooner of $35,000.' Negotiations were subsequently had for settlement of the losses caused to the claimant by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dreyer v. Jalet
...only by statute." 346 F.2d at 635. Accord, Dolan v. United States, 351 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1965). See Kunhardt & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 537, 45 S.Ct. 158, 69 L.Ed. 428 (1925). Other methods to compensate appointed counsel are based on less tedious grounds. First, if as a matter of ch......
-
Smith v. State
...does not occur when the state simply requires an individual to fulfill a commitment he has made. Kunhardt & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 537, 45 S.Ct. 158, 69 L.Ed. 428 (1925); Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S.Ct. 1157, 35 L.Ed.2d 508 (1973). An applicant for admission to prac......
-
Emery v. State
...States, 147 F.2d 752, 754 [ (10th Cir.1944) ] (alternative service for conscientious objectors); cf. Kunhardt & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 537, 540 [45 S.Ct. 158, 160, 69 L.Ed. 428]. It is beyond dispute that there is in fact a public obligation to provide evidence, see United States v.......
-
Arnold v. Kemp
...when he is called upon to fulfill it, he cannot contend that it is a "taking of his services." Cf. Kunhardt & Company, Inc. v. United States, 266 U.S. 537, 45 S.Ct. 158, 69 L.Ed. 428 (1925). In Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), the Supreme Court held......