Weeks v. Goltra
Decision Date | 23 July 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 6871.,6871. |
Citation | 7 F.2d 838 |
Parties | WEEKS, Secretary of War, et al. v. GOLTRA. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Lon O. Hocker, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Joseph T. Davis and Douglas W. Robert, both of St. Louis, Mo. (Charles Claflin Allen, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and POLLOCK and SYMES, District Judges.
For convenience, the parties will be designated as they stood on the record below.
This appeal brings before this court for review an order granting appellee, plaintiff below, a temporary mandatory injunctive order against appellants, defendants below, enjoining and commanding them to restore to said plaintiff at the port of St. Louis certain towboats, barges, and other appliances theretofore by him held in possession, under and by virtue of a certain written agreement of lease entered into between plaintiff and the United States through its agent and representative designated by the honorable Secretary of War on the 28th day of May, 1919, until defendant below, the honorable Secretary of War, acting under and in pursuance of the terms of said lease, on March 3, 1923, determined the conditions of said lease had been broken by plaintiff, and declared the same terminated, and directed the restoration of the government's property to its representatives at the port of St. Louis, Mo. Said order of the honorable Secretary of War terminating the lease not having been complied with, by direction of the Secretary of War the fleet of barges and towboats and handling facilities at St. Louis were seized by order of the War Department by Col. T. Q. Ashburn, Chief of the Inland and Coast-wise Waterways Service, when the order sought to be reviewed was entered.
But two questions are presented by this appeal. The solution of these questions determines the controversy. They are as follows (1) Is this suit one in legal effect and intendment against the government of the United States? (2) Is the question presented as to the right of the government to retake the leased property one committed to the decision, judgment, and discretion of an official of the government, or is it a justiciable controversy for submission to and decision by a court of justice?
The controversy arises in this manner:
Growing out of the emergency created by the late war, the necessity arose, or was thought to arise, of having towboats and barges on the upper Mississippi river employed in carrying coal and iron ore, and other heavy minerals to St. Louis, to be there used in the manufacture of iron needed in the production of munitions of war. To subserve this purpose, the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation allotted to the Chief of Engineers of the United States armies the sum of $3,860,000 with which to have constructed at Point Pleasant, W. Va., Pittsburgh, Pa., and Keokuk, Iowa, under contract of August 1, 1918, nineteen barges, and under plans and specifications prepared for such purpose by the government either three or four towboats. These barges having been constructed, or nearing completion, and the towboats having been contracted for when the Armistice was signed and the emergency of war ended. The government then desiring to make some disposition and use of the fleet, and, there having been prior negotiations with plaintiff, the written contract of lease, the terms of which are in controversy herein, was entered into on the 28th day of May, 1919, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Goltra Goltra v. United States
...in favor of the claimant shall be paid in the same manner as other judgments of said Court of Claims are paid.' 3 Weeks, Secretary of War, v. Goltra, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 838; Ex parte United States, 263 U.S. 389, 44 S.Ct. 130, 68 L.Ed. 351; Goltra v. Weeks, Secretary of War, 271 U.S. 536, 46 S.C......
-
Jamison Coal & Coke Co. v. Goltra
...judgment appealed from is affirmed. 1 For a history of the litigation upon Goltra's claim prior and subsequent to 1934 see: Weeks v. Goltra, 8 Cir., 7 F. 2d 838; Petition of United States, 263 U.S. 389, 44 S.Ct. 130, 68 L.Ed. 351; Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U.S. 536, 46 S.Ct. 613, 70 L.Ed. 1074; ......