Thompson v. United States, 7869.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 7869.,7869. |
| Citation | 268 F.2d 426 |
| Parties | Loren E. THOMPSON, d/b/a Parkersburg Die and Tool Company, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Lawrence M. Ronning and Robert Evans Stealey, Parkersburg, W. Va. (Ronning & Bailey, and McCluer, Davis, McDougle, Stealey & Morris, Parkersburg, W. Va., on brief), for appellant.
Albert M. Morgan, U. S. Atty., Morgantown, W. Va. (Robert J. Schleuss, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairmont, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
No question of law is presented by this appeal. Though the controlling law is federal, rather than state as assumed below,1 there is no apparent difference in the governing rules. The sole question is whether the facts require an inference that the United States waived the defaults of its contractor with respect to the contract involved in count 1 of the complaint. That may have been a permissible inference, but the facts as found and recited in the opinion of the District Court2 do not require it. The factual question was settled by the findings of the District Court which we must accept.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Idlewild Pharmacy, Inc.
...564, 66 S.Ct. 749, 754, 90 L.Ed. 851; United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174, 64 S.Ct. 908, 88 L.Ed. 1209; Thompson v. United States, 268 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1959). The line between what constitutes a representation and information is, at times, difficult to draw. The issue is not a......
- Tillman v. United States
-
United States v. Transamerica Insurance Company
...a particular reliance upon the law of Virginia in executing the agreements, federal law probably would apply. Thompson v. United States, 268 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1959); see Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 63 S.Ct. 573, 87 L.Ed. 838 (1943); United States v. Taylor, 333 F.2......
-
Venice Maid Co., Inc. v. United States
...tenacity or perseverance necessary to do the job. See United States v. Thompson, 168 F.Supp. 281 (N.D.W.Va.1958), aff'd, 268 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1959). Once the contracting officer finds there is a "reasonable doubt as to the reliability and dependability" of the contractor, the courts will ......