Wilbur v. United States Vindicator Consol Gold Min Co Same v. United States Chestatee Pyrites Chemical Corporation
| Decision Date | 07 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 66,67,s. 66 |
| Citation | 284 U.S. 231,76 L.Ed. 261,52 S.Ct. 113 |
| Parties | WILBUR, Secretary of the Interior, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. VINDICATOR CONSOL. GOLD MIN. CO. SAME v. UNITED STATES ex rel. CHESTATEE PYRITES & CHEMICAL CORPORATION |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mr. Seth W.Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 232 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edgar Watkins and Marion Smith, both of Atlanta, Ga., J. C. Trimble, of Washington, D. C., and Mac Asbill, of Atlanta, Ga., for respondents.
May 31, 1919, the relator under section 5 of the Act of March 2 of that year, 40 Stat. 1272, 1274 (50 USCA § 80 note), known as the War Minerals Relief Act, filed with the Secretary of the Interior a claim for net losses alleged to have been suffered by reason of producing or preparing to produce chrome in compliance with the request of the Secretary. The claim included an item of $16,259 asserted to be a net loss by reason of the expenditure of that amount for the purchase of land upon which the mine was located. Relator still holds the title. May 15, 1922, the Secretary held that under the act he was not authorized to adjust or pay losses by reason of expenditures for the purchase of property, and on that ground denied any award on account of that item.
In Work v. Rives (1925) 267 U. S. 175, 45 S. Ct. 252, 69 L. Ed. 561, we held that the act made the Secretary's decisions conclusive. But Congress, by the Act of February 13, 1929, 45 Stat. 1166, authorized the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to review the final decision of the Secretary upon any question of law which had arisen or might thereafter arise in the adjustment of such claims, expressly leaving his decisions on questions of fact conclusive.
February 18, 1929, relator sued for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary to take jurisdiction and to adjust and pay relator its net losses suffered by reason of the purchase of such property. The court held the Secretary rightly decided the question of law and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals, following its earlier decision in Work v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 84, 295 F. 225 (), held that Secretary erred in law and reversed the judgment. 47 F.(2d) 422. This court granted a writ of certiorari. 283 U. S. 817, 51 S. Ct. 650, 75 L. Ed. 1433.
The question for decision is: To what extent, if at all, does the statute empower the Secretary in respect of net loss incurred by relator by reason of its expenditure for such land?
During the World War certain mineral substances and products including chrome became essential to the nation's defense. The need having become very great, Congress by the Act of October 5, 1918, 40 Stat. 1009, declared a large number of such materials to be necessaries, em- powered the President, through such agencies as he should designate, to acquire and distribute the same and also to requisition, develop, and operate lands, mines, and plants capable for producing them, and appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out the purpose of the statute. The Armistice, November 11, 1918, ended the emergency.
By section 5 of the Relief Act the Secretary is empowered 'to adjust * * * and pay such net losses as have been suffered by any person * * * by reason of producing or preparing to produce, either manganese, chrome, pyrites, or tungsten in compliance with the request or demand of the Department of the Interior, the War Industries Board, the War Trade Board, the Shipping Board, or the Emergency Fleet Corporation to supply the urgent needs of the Nation in the prosecution of the war. * * *' And the sectioin limits the authority of the Secretary to such 'adjustments and payments in each case as he shall determine to be just and equitable.' It requires that all disbursements shall be made out of funds appropriated by the Act of 1918, and shall not exceed $8,500,000. A proviso declares that no claim shall be allowed or paid unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the expenditures so made were made in good faith 'for or upon property which contained either manganese, chrome, pyrites, or tungsten in sufficient quantities to be of commercial importance.'
The Act of November 23, 1921, 42 Stat. 322 (50 USCA § 80 note), amends and broadens section 5 of the Relief Act by adding to its first paragraph a provision that 'all claimants who, in response to any personal, written, or published request, demand, solicitation, or appeal from any of the government agencies mentioned in' the Act of October 5, 1918,1 'in good faith expended money in producing or preparing to produce any of the ores or minerals named therein and have heretofore mailed or filed their claims or notice in writing thereof within the time and in the manner prescribed by said Act, if the proof in support of said claims clearly shows them to be based upon action taken in response to such request, demand, solicitation or appeal, shall be reimbursed such net losses as they may have incurred and are in justice and equity entitled to from the appropriation in said Act.' And by the Act of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 634, the limitation of the aggregate amount to be disbursed under the act of 1919 was repealed.
Section 5, the proviso referring to expenditures 'for or upon property' containing the minerals, and the amendment of 1921, are plainly broad enough to include net losses resulting by reason of expenditures for the purchase of property and leaves no room to doubt that it was the purpose of Congress to empower the Secretary to take them into account in arriving at the amount, if any, to be allowed and paid.
The petitioner argues that the phrase 'such net losses as have been suffered' excludes claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. American Trucking Ass Ns
...82 L.Ed. 1393, 116 A.L.R. 346; Helvering v. City Bank Co., 296 U.S. 85, 89, 56 S.Ct. 70, 72, 80 L.Ed. 62; Wilbur v. United States, 284 U.S. 231, 237, 52 S.Ct. 113, 114, 76 L.Ed. 261; Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60, 51 S.Ct. 49, 50, 75 L.Ed. 156; United States v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 27......
-
The Texas Company v. Siefried
... ... 142 THE TEXAS COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C. F. SIEFRIED, ... Park under contracts with the United States. The gasoline ... used for the purpose of ... jurisdiction over the same." Until the enactment of the ... 234; Fletcher v ... Interstate Chemical Co., 94 N.J.L. 332, 110 A. 709; ... In re ... ...
-
Rich v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...891, 82 L.Ed. 1393; Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 89, 56 S.Ct. 70, 80 L. Ed. 62; Wilbur v. United States, 284 U. S. 231, 237, 52 S.Ct. 113, 76 L.Ed. 261; Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60, 51 S.Ct. 49, 75 L.Ed. 156; United States v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 278 U......
-
United Brick & Clay Workers v. Deena Artware
...891, 82 L.Ed. 1393; Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 88-89, 56 S.Ct. 70, 80 L.Ed. 62; Wilbur v. United States, 284 U.S. 231, 237, 52 S.Ct. 113, 76 L.Ed. 261. Appellants further contend that § 303(a) (2) of the Act, § 187(a) (2), Title 29 U.S.C.A. makes an exception to ......
-
A Herculean leap for the hard case of post-acquisition claims: interpreting Fair Housing Act section 3604(b) after Modesto.
...Helvering v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 296 U.S. 85, 89 (1935); Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Vindicator Consol. Gold Mining Co., 284 U.S. 231,237 (1931); Banco Mexicano v. Deutsche Bank, 263 U.S. 591,602 (1924); R.R. Comm'n. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 257 U.S. 563, 588-89 (1922); ......