Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Johnson, Civ. No. 1630-47.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1947
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 1630-47.
• Citation: 71 F. Supp. 791
• Parties: PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. v. JOHNSON.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

71 F. Supp. 791

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. v. JOHNSON.

Civ. No. 1630-47.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

May 22, 1947.

H. D. Driscoll and H. Russell Bishop, both of Washington, D. C. (John H. MacVey, and Stephen J. McMahon, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiff.

John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Daniel B. Maher, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C. (John Ford Baecher and J. Francis Hayden, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendant.

McGUIRE, Associate Justice.

This is a complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief, whereby the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Director of the Office of Defense Transportation from putting into effect a so-called Special Allocation Order, and to have the same declared illegal, void and ineffective, and for a ruling to the effect that the plaintiff is not obliged to comply with an instruction sent to it by the Office of Defense Transportation implementing the order above mentioned.

The facts leading up to the question, in brief, are as follows:

The Government was and is the owner of certain tank cars of which a number were leased to the plaintiff under the terms of an instrument dated March 23, 1944 and approved by the proper government contracting officer on May 28, 1944, and which was to remain in effect, by its terms, until March 23, 1945. There was a provision that upon completion of the term specified, the lease was to continue on a month-to-month basis unless sooner terminated by either party on the giving of what was in effect a 30-day notice. (Plaintiff's Ex. A.). The actual number of cars leased, under the terms of the instrument referred to, was originally 70. They were of a specified character, series and capacity. Other cars in the same category were subsequently leased under the same terms, until the aggregate held by the plaintiff under the arrangement was 189.

Subsequently these cars, among others, were declared by the Government to be surplus and were turned over to the War Assets Administration for ultimate disposition. That agency apparently proceeded to cancel, under the terms of the lease, but agreed, it appears, subsequently to continue the lease in full force and effect, reducing, however, the cancellation-notice-period to 10 days. This arrangement was brought about by telephone and telegraphic communications, (Plaintiff's Exs. B. and C),— with the War Assets Administration as the new contracting agency for the Government and the plaintiff concurring.

On April 8, 1947 the Administration, by telegram gave the 10 days' notice required and terminated the agreement covering all cars...