United States v. Joseph Behr & Sons, 50 C 22.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 50 C 22.,50 C 22. |
| Citation | 110 F. Supp. 286 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH BEHR & SONS, Inc. |
Otto Kerner, Jr., U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Miller, Thomas, Hickey & Collins, Rockford, Ill., for defendant.
In this cause the United States seeks to recover the sum of $25,350 which is the balance of the price for goods purchased by the defendant corporation through the War Assets Administration. The defendant corporation has filed an amended counterclaim alleging damages in the sum of $50,737.80 for nondelivery of certain items. Defendant prays for judgment against the United States in the sum of $10,000. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the amended counterclaim.
No suit may be brought against the United States without statutory consent. U. S. v. Shaw, 309 U.S. 495, 60 S.Ct. 659, 84 L.Ed. 888. If a suit is brought by the United States against a defendant for an amount allegedly due the United States, it may be properly set up by way of defense in the amount owing him to the extent of such claim. The Court, however, has no jurisdiction to render an affirmative judgment against the United States on a counterclaim. The provision of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346, giving the District Court jurisdiction over certain suits against the United States do not permit the recovery of demands against the United States on counterclaims but refer to original suits and prescribe procedure inconsistent with its use as the basis for a counterclaim. U. S. v. Nipissing Mines Company, 2 Cir., 206 F. 431 and U. S. for use of Mutual Metal Mfg. Co. v. Biggs, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 8.
Accordingly, the amended counterclaim must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lacy
...66 F.2d 573, 577, 92 A.L.R. 1484, certiorari denied, 1934, 291 U.S. 672, 54 S.Ct. 457, 78 L.Ed. 1061; United States v. Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc., D.C.N.D.Ill. 1953, 110 F.Supp. 286; United States v. Double Bend Mfg. Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1953, 114 F.Supp. 750. The counterclaim will not lie for th......
-
United States v. Carey Terminal Corporation
...§ 1346 expressed outside of this Circuit. See United States v. Boris, 122 F.Supp. 936 (E.D.Pa.1954); United States v. Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc., 110 F.Supp. 286, 287 (N.D.Ill.1953); United States v. Lashlee, 105 F.Supp. 184 (W.D.Ark.1952).2 In deciding this matter the court finds itself in h......
-
United States v. Ameco Electronic Corporation
...506, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894; United States v. Shaw, 1940, 309 U.S. 495, 60 S.Ct. 659, 84 L.Ed. 888; United States v. Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc., N.D.Ill., 1953, 110 F. Supp. 286. Defendant suggests that the time has come to depart from this rule, asserting that the result is not required ......
-
United States v. Buffalo Coal Mining Company
...D.C.S.D.N.Y.1953, 114 F.Supp. 750, 751; United States v. Nipissing Mines Co., 2 Cir., 1913, 206 F. 431; United States v. Joseph Behr & Sons, Inc., D.C.N.D.Ill.1953, 110 F.Supp. 286; United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1949, 84 F. Supp. 896), I find that this authority......