Page images
PDF
EPUB

92 C. Cls. Opinion of the Court The court decided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, in Numbers 44264 to 44270, inclusive, as follows: No. 44264, the sum of eighty-six dollars and ninety-two cents ($86.92); No. 44265, the sum of four thousand nine hundred forty-five dollars and fifty cents ($4,945,50); No. 44266, the sum of two hundred fifty-five dollars and two cents ($255.02); No. 44267, the sum of four thousand five hundred ninety-five dollars and seventy-four cents ($4,595.74); No. 44268, the sum of six thousand three hundred seventy-one dollars and ninety-two cents ($6,371.92); No. 44269, the sum of two hundred ninety-nine dollars and seventy-five cents ($299.75); No. 44270, the sum of two hundred seventy-two dollars and fifty-six cents ($272.56).

OPINION per curiam: Each of the cases herein is brought by the Cold Spring Granite Company pursuant to the Act of Congress of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1197), entitled "An Act to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and enter judgment upon the claims of Government contractors whose costs of performance were increased as a result of enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933." Plaintiff's claims are for increased costs incurred in furnishing granite for use in connection with contracts between the prime contractors and the United States.

In each case plaintiff was a subcontractor furnishing material to the prime contractor under contracts entered into prior to August 10, 1940, and is, therefore, within the class benefited by the Act of June 25, 1938. Likewise, plaintiff's claims were presented to the Treasury Department within the limitation period defined in section 4 of the Act of June 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 974). After submission of proof to defendant of increased costs and an audit of plaintiff's books and records by defendant's accountants as provided by the memorandum and order issued by the court February 1, 1939, plaintiff and defendant entered into a stipulation agreeing that in performance of the contracts herein involved plaintiff incurred increased labor costs as set forth in findings 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, and 35. The court having found that these increased labor costs were incurred as a

[ocr errors]

417

Reporter's Statement of the Case result of the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act, it follows that plaintiff is entitled to recover in accordance with the conclusion of law hereinabove. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY

v. THE UNITED STATES

(No. 44444. Decided January 6, 1941]

On the Proofs

Government contract; costs inoreased under the N. I. R. Act.

Under the Act of June 25, 1938, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover for increased labor costs as a result of the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

The Reporter's statement of the case:

Messrs. Hogan & Hartson for the plaintiff.

Mr. Gaines V. Palmes, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea, for defendant.

The court made special findings of fact as follows:

1. The plaintiff is a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

2. March 7, 1933, plaintiff entered into a contract with Arthur W. Langevin, who had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Post Office at Weston, West Virginia. This contract required plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building

3. January 24, 1933, plaintiff entered into a contract with The Otto Misch Company, which had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Marine Hospital at Norfolk, Virginia. This contract required plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building.

a

92 C. Cls. Reporter's Statement of the Case 4. February 17, 1933, plaintiff entered into a contract with the Weinstein Construction Company, which had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Post Office at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. This contract required plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building.

5. February 10, 1933, plaintiff entered into a contract with A. W. Kutsche and Company, which had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Post Office at New Castle, Pennsylvania. This contract required plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building.

6. February 4, 1933, plaintiff entered into a contract with the Consolidated Engineering Company, Inc., which had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Post Office and Court House at Norfolk, Virginia. This contract required plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building.

7. December 7, 1932, plaintiff entered into a contract with H. G. Christman, who had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Post Office at Lansing, Michigan. This contract required plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building.

8. October 26, 1932, plaintiff entered into a contract with the N. P. Severin Company, which had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Post Office, Court House, etc., at Newark, New Jersey. This contract required plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building.

9. July 28, 1932, plaintiff entered into a contract with the George A. Fuller Company, which had a general contract with the defendant, through its Treasury Department, for construction of the United States Department of Justice building at Washington, D. C. This contract required

423

Opinion of the Court plaintiff to furnish miscellaneous glass and glazing work in the construction of said building.

10. As a result of the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act and to comply therewith, plaintiff on July 16, 1933, increased the wages of its factory workers who were engaged in direct labor in the performance of all the contracts referred to in findings 2 to 9, inclusive, from 36 cents per hour to 40 cents per hour. On August 16, 1933, plaintiff reduced the hours of its factory workers engaged in direct labor in the performance of all the said contracts from 48 hours to 36 hours per week, and adjusted their pay per hour so that none would receive less pay per week than received by the increase of July 16, 1933.

11. Plaintiff signed the President's Reemployment Agreement on three separate dates: September 1, 5, and 6, 1933.

12. Each of the contracts referred to in findings 2 to 9, inclusive, was fully performed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been paid the contract price provided in each contract.

13. As a result of the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act, plaintiff on and after September 1, 1933, in the performance of the contracts referred to in findings 2 to 9, inclusive, incurred increased direct labor costs not contemplated under and by said contracts in the amount of $1,892.05. This amount does not include increased salaries of officials or employees in executive or managerial positions earning $35 per week or more.

14. Plaintiff's claims for increased direct labor costs, incurred as hereinbefore stated, were presented to the Comptroller General of the United States within the limitation period defined in section 4 of the Act of June 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 974). The claims were disallowed by the Comptroller General.

The court decided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

OPINION per curiam: Plaintiff, the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, sues to recover increased labor costs pursuant to the Act of Congress approved June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1197), entitled “An Act to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and enter judgment upon the

[ocr errors]

92 C. Cls. Syllabas claims of Government contractors whose costs of performance were increased as a result of enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933." The claim here asserted is based upon eight subcontracts between eight prime contractors with the United States and plaintiff, under which plaintiff furnished miscellaneous glass and glazing work for certain public buildings constructed by the prime contractors for defendant. Each of the contracts between plaintiff and the prime contractors was entered into prior to August 10, 1933.

It appearing that plaintiff qualifies under the Act of June 25, 1938, and it further appearing that there has been compliance with the memorandum and order as to procedure in submitting proof of increased costs issued February 1, 1939, by the court, and the court having found that plaintiff in the performance of the contracts incurred in. creased labor costs in the amount of $1,892.05 as a result of enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act, it follows that plaintiff is entitled to recover that amount. It is so ordered.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK, A BODY CORPO

RATE, v. THE UNITED STATES

(No. 44927. Decided January 6, 1941)

On the Proofs Income tax; debts ascertained to be worthless and charged off.

Where the board of directors of a national bank at the request of the national bank examiner on June 27, 1934, adopted a resolution authorizing the charge-off of certain assets required to be charged off by said examiner, and where in accordance with instructions from the said bank examiner said assets were not charged off until a readjustment of the bank's capital structure was effected and where in accordance with instructions from the comptroller of the currency the said assets were accordingly charged off in March 1835; it is held that plaintiff (national bank) is not entitled to a deduction from gross income for 1934 for said assets as bad debts under the provisions of section 23 (k) of the Revenue Act of 1934 which provides for the allowance of a deduction for "debts ascertained to be worthless and charged off within the taxable year."

« PreviousContinue »