United States v. McCarl, 4345.

• Decision Date: 02 November 1925
• Docket Number: No. 4345.,4345.
• Citation: 8 F.2d 1011
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. SKINNER & EDDY CORPORATION v. McCARL, Comptroller General.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

8 F.2d 1011 (1925)

UNITED STATES ex rel. SKINNER & EDDY CORPORATION v. McCARL, Comptroller General.

No. 4345.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted October 5, 1925.

Decided November 2, 1925.

Rehearing Denied November 21, 1925.

J. B. Carter, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Peyton Gordon and M. E. Rhodes, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for mandamus to compel appellee to pass upon a claim of appellant growing out of contracts between the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation and the Skinner & Eddy Corporation.

There now is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington a suit instituted by the Skinner & Eddy Corporation against the Emerency Fleet Corporation and based upon the above contracts. The Emergency Fleet Corporation made what purported to be a general assignment to the United States. Thereupon the United States, as assignee, instituted suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on claims growing out of the same contracts involved in the suit filed by the Skinner & Eddy Corporation.

Prior to the assignment of these contracts to the United States, the Comptroller General had ruled that claims thereunder by the Skinner & Eddy Corporation were not claims against the United States, but claims against the Emergency Fleet Corporation. After the assignment by the Emergency Fleet Corporation, and, as stated by the Skinner & Eddy Corporation, in anticipation of the bringing of the suit which the United States subsequently filed, the jurisdiction of the Comptroller General again was sought to be invoked, and denied.

Appellant maintains that the status of the Emergency Fleet Corporation has been definitely determined by the Supreme Court of the United States to be that of a private business corporation, having a distinct entity and not entitled to the immunity of the sovereign, and hence that it may be sued as any other private corporation for its torts or upon its contracts. In support of this contention are cited U. S. v. Strang, 254 U. S. 491, 41 S. Ct. 165, 65 L. Ed. 368, and Sloan Shipyard Corp. v. U. S. E. F. C., 258 U. S. 549, 42 S. Ct. 386, 66 L. Ed. 762. Those decisions apparently fully sustain this contention. Appellant further contends that the assignment of these contracts to...