LE Myers Co. v. United States, 45057.

Citation105 Ct. Cl. 459,64 F. Supp. 148
Decision Date04 February 1946
Docket NumberNo. 45057.,45057.
PartiesL. E. MYERS CO. v. UNITED STATES.
CourtCourt of Federal Claims

Horace S. Whitman, of Washington, D. C. (Robert C. Handwerk, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiff.

Louis R. Mehlinger, of Washington, D. C., and John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the defendant.

Before WHALEY, Chief Justice, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, JONES, and MADDEN, Judges.

WHALEY, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff agreed to construct for the Department of Commerce 26 sets of steel 125' Airway radio range masts, four to a set, at that many locations in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

The contract, a formal one, was entered into June 23, 1932, following the usual advertisement, bid, and award.

There were in fact 50 sets advertised, at 50 various sites, but the plaintiff chose to bid for 26 sets only, and its bid was accepted, at stated amounts for each unit. Locations for the masts were identified by the names of the towns nearest to the precise locations. Precise locations and physical data were to be obtained by the contractor from local airport officials. The work and the named unit price included excavation for and the construction of specified concrete bases, excess concrete to be paid for at $12 per cubic yard. In naming this price of $12 per cubic yard, the bidder (plaintiff) stated in its accepted bid "(The above bid price includes earth excavation)." The bidder also agreed to a deduction of 1½ percent from the listed prices.

The work was agreed to "be completed in ninety days from date of receipt of notice to proceed with the work", and the specifications, drawings, and bid were made part of the contract.

Among other matters of defense the defendant raises issue on the statute of limitations, Section 156 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 262: "Every claim against the United States cognizable by the Court of Claims, shall be forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the court, or transmitted to it by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, as provided by law, within six years after the claim first accrues. * * *"

The petition herein was filed February 2, 1940.

The findings show that the last completion date was May 26, 1933, at which date full performance on plaintiff's part was accomplished. This was the work at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

However, on May 24, 1933, the plaintiff had submitted to the defendant its "final" vouchers for the balances claimed to be due. The vouchers did not include the additional amounts herein sued for. After making certain deductions, the defendant paid the remainder to the plaintiff June 16, 1933, by check, the plaintiff endorsed the check and accepted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Nager Electric Company, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 14, 1966
    ...States, 100 Ct.Cl. 227, 235 (1943); John P. Moriarty, Inc. v. United States, 97 Ct.Cl. 338, 339 (1942); L. E. Myers Co. v. United States, 64 F.Supp. 148, 149, 105 Ct.Cl. 459, 478 (1946) (a late appeal to the Secretary disregarded); Holton, Seelye & Co. v. United States, 65 F.Supp. 903, 905-......
  • Friedman v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • January 11, 1963
    ...121, 124; John P. Moriarty, Inc. v. United States, 97 Ct.Cl. 338; Ylagan v. United States, 101 Ct.Cl. 294; L. E. Myers Co., Inc. v. United States, 64 F.Supp. 148, 105 Ct.Cl. 459; Love v. United States, 104 F.Supp. 102, 122 Ct. Cl. 144, 146; Tan v. United States, 102 F.Supp. 552, 122 Ct.Cl. ......
  • Martinez v. U.S., 99-5163.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • June 17, 2003
    ...not required unless Congress, the agency in question, or the contract in suit, expressly compelled it. See L.E. Myers Co. v. United States, 105 Ct.Cl. 459, 478, 64 F.Supp. 148 (1946); Ylagan v. United States, 101 Ct.Cl. 294 (1944); John P. Moriarty, Inc. v. United States, 97 Ct.Cl. 338 (194......
  • Lipp v. United States, 384-58.
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • April 4, 1962
    ...proceedings were pursued by application and denial by the correction board gave no comfort to plaintiff. L. E. Myers Co., Inc. v. United States, 105 Ct.Cl. 459, 64 F.Supp. 148; Carlisle v. United States, 29 Ct.Cl. 414; Battelle and Evans v. United States, 7 Ct.Cl. 297; Curtis v. United Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT