Lumber Co v. Louth
| Decision Date | 03 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | INGRAM-DAY,No. 126,126 |
| Citation | 72 L.Ed. 378,48 S.Ct. 153,275 U.S. 471 |
| Parties | LUMBER CO. v. McLOUTH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. J. Shaw and Ferris D. Stone, both of Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.
Mr. Gardner P. Lloyd, of New York City, for respondent.
Petitioner sued in the District Court for eastern Michigan for the decedent's breach of contract to purchase a quantity of lumber. The defense relied on was that the lumber was to be used by the intestate in the performance of contracts he had made with the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation for the construction of a number of ocean-going tugboats; that acting under the President's Executive Orders of July 11, 1917, and December 3, 1918, and the Emergency Shipping Fund provisions of the Urgent Deficiencies Appropriation Act of June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 Stat. 182, 183, the Fleet Corporation in 1919, before delivery of all the lumber, had canceled the contract with decedent for building the tugs and directed him 'to make no further commitments or expenditures'; and that this action or the decedent's subsequent order to petitioner to stop delivery of the lumber, or both, amounted to a cancellation of petitioner's contract also.
By written stipulation a jury was waived and the case was tried to the court, which made special findings, among others, that petitioner, at the time of entering into its contract with decedent, knew that the lumber was to be furnished for the building of tugs, but did not know that decedent was building the tugs for the Fleet Corporation. The court also found that decedent had stopped deliveries of the lumber, but there is no finding that this was done or purported to be done under the authority of the Fleet Corporation. It was found that petitioner's damage was $647.65, the difference between the contract price of the lumber ready for delivery when the decedent ordered performance stopped and its market price when recut into salable lengths, but that if the ordinary rule of damages should be applied petitioner's loss of bargain on the whole contract would bring its damages up to $42,789.96. The court gave judgment for the smaller amount ((D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 471), and this was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (13 F.(2d) 581). This court granted certiorari. 273 U. S. 684, 47 S. Ct. 239, 71 L. Ed. 839.
The Urgent Deficiencies Appropriation Act of 1917 authorized the President '(b) to modify, suspend, cancel, or requisition any existing or future contract for the building, production, or purchase of ships or material.' Section 1 (Comp. St. § 3115 1/16 d). It provided that the United States 'shall make just compensation' for any contracts canceled or requisitioned, and authorized the President to delegate the powers conferred upon him. His powers, so far as material here, were delegated to the Fleet Corporation by Executive Orders of July 11, 1917, and December 3, 1918. The statute authorized the cancellation of the government's own contracts, made after its enactment, and just compensation for such cancellation does not include anticipated profits, ordinarily recoverable in an action of assumpsit. Duesenberg Motors Corp. v. United States, 260 U. S. 115, 43 S. Ct. 19, 67 L. Ed. 162; Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 514, 43 S. Ct. 428, 67 L. Ed. 778. It authorized also the expropriation or requisition of private contracts, and in computing the just compensation for these the value of the anticipated performance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Shaw (In re McLouth's Estate)
...of the Ingram-Day Lumber Company was finally reduced to judgment in the supreme court of the United States. Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. McLouth, 275 U.S. 471, 48 S.Ct. 153, 72 L.Ed 378. The date of this judgment was January 3, 1928. Pending this litigation in the federal court McLouth had died......
-
United States v. Shaw
...States in the state courts. Reversed. Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS took no part in the decision of this case. 1 Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. McLouth, 275 U.S. 471, 48 S.Ct. 153, 72 L.Ed. 378. 2 Shaw v. United States, 6 Cir., 75 F.2d 175. 3 The Act of March 3, 1797, 1 Stat. 512, 514, as amended, 28 U.......
-
United States v. Shaw (In re McLouth's Estate)
...of Appeals and the Supreme Court. See Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. McLouth (D.C.) 6 F.(2d) 471; Id. (C.C.A.) 13 F.(2d) 581, and 275 U.S. 471, 48 S.Ct. 153, 72 L.Ed. 378. The Supreme Court held that as the lumber company's contract with McLouth by its terms was an independent one, and not made d......
-
Shanks v. Wilson
...U.S. 264, 277, 36 S. Ct. 300, 306, 60 L.Ed. 636 (and see Woodruff v. Hough, 91 U.S. 596, 602, 23 L.Ed. 332; Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. McLouth, 275 U.S. 471, 48 S.Ct. 153, 72 L.Ed. 378), is that `in the case of subcontracts, as in other cases of express agreements in writing, a reference by t......