INDEX DIGEST

"ACCUMULATED PROFITS."
See Taxes XXXVI.

ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933.

See Gold Bullion I, II, IV.

AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.

I. Where plaintiff, a distiller, under the terms of a marketing
agreement for the "Distilled Spirits Industry," to
which marketing agreement plaintiff was a party, under
the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act,
made payments to the Secretary of Agriculture repre-
senting the difference between the price paid by plain-
tiff for cereal grains or products thereof used by
plaintiff in the manufacture of distilled spirits and the
"parity" price of such grains or products; it is held that
neither the terms of the act nor the provisions of the
marketing agreement required the establishment of a
trust fund for the benefit of plaintiff and associated
distilleries, and no such trust fund was established in
which plaintiff might claim an interest. Calvert
Distilling Co., 517.

II. Payments made under the Agricultural Adjustment Act
were unconditional. Id.

III. The establishment by the Treasury of a special account
to which "parity" payments were credited was an
accounting transaction indicating that that particular
amount of money rather than that the particular
dollars was to be used for a special purpose. Id.

IV. There was no implied contract in the marketing agree-
ment which was in writing and was an express contract.
Id.

BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS.

See Import Duties I, II, IV.

CHANGED CONDITIONS.

See Contracts XXXVI.

CHANGES.

See Contracts XV.

CLAIM FOR REFUND.

See Taxes XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX,
XXXI.

CLAIM PREMATURELY FILED.

See Taxes I, II, III, IV, V, VI.

747

94 C. Cls.

CONCEALMENT.

See Contracts III, VI.
CONDITIONAL PERMIT.

See Tort I, II, III.
CONSOLIDATED RETURN.
See Taxes XV.

CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.

See Taxes XLIV.

CONTRACTING OFFICER.

See Contracts XII, XIII, XIX, XX, XXI.
CONTRACTS.

I. Where plaintiff, contractor, entered into a contract with
defendant June 1929 to furnish all labor and materials
and perform all work required for dredging Maumee
River and Maumee Bay Channel, Lake Erie, in accord-
ance with specifications, schedules, and drawings made
part of the contract; and where the specifications
stated that the contour of the channel was improved to
21 feet depth and 400 feet width in 1913-15, and that
material to be removed was thought to be silt, clay,
and sand but the bidders were to examine the work
and decide for themselves as to its character and to
make their bids accordingly, as the United States did
not guarantee the accuracy of this description; and
where the specifications further stated that the price
per cubic yard covered the cost of removal and disposi-
tion of all material encountered except ledge rock; it is
held that there was no misrepresentation as to condi-
tions on the part of the defendant and plaintiff is not
entitled to recover. Central Dredging Co., 1.

II. Inconsistency in the specifications, if any, would have
been resolved by the bidder examining the work and
deciding for himself. Id.

III. Where certain drawings which the defendant furnished
plaintiff on which to base its bid were not all the draw-
ings which were in the possession of the defendant, it is
held there was no attempted concealment by an officer
of the Government in not furnishing said additional
drawings. Id.

IV. Where the claim for subcontractor's loss is based on
grounds presented to the contracting officer before the
subcontractor entered into its contract with plaintiff
and where it was well known to the plaintiff that the
contracting officer and the Chief of Engineers both
believed that the hard material which plaintiff had
encountered was strictly within the terms of the con-
tract; it is held that said claim is without merit. Id.

V. Where contractor had no reason not to expect that it
would encounter in the site which it contracted to
excavate whatever foundations, footings, or pillars
may have been used to support the former brick build-
ing on said site; and where contractor, though having
an unusual opportunity to do so, made no effort to
ascertain what foundations the former building had;
and where contractor had agreed to take the site as it
found it and to remove such material as it might find
there; it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover
for loss on account of additional costs incurred by
reason of encountering more difficult conditions than
it had expected. James Stewart & Co., 95.

VI. The evidence does not sustain the claim that there was
either misrepresentation or concealment on the part
of defendant. Id.

VII. Where plaintiff agreed, under purchase agreements with
the United States, to deliver top soil to several parks
and parkways in New York State at stipulated prices
for delivery at stated locations; and where the major
portion of top soil contracted for delivery to one
location was diverted to other more distant locations;
and where such diversions were made on oral orders of
unauthorized persons and without written authority
from authorized agents of the defendant; it is held
that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Walter C.
Reediger, Inc., 120.

VIII. The contract fixed the rights and obligations of the
parties and vested in the Government the right to
have performance in accordance with its terms; and
no unauthorized officer of the Government could waive
the terms of the contract. Id.

IX. Where the diversions were not shown by the evidence
adduced to have been authorized and were made
without the knowledge or approval of the duly author-
ized official; and where no agreement, express or
implied, was made to make payment at a rate in
excess of that stipulated in the contract; it is held
there is no basis for a recovery on the theory of
quantum meruit. Id.

X. Where the Government purchased from vendor coal, at an
agreed price, for use in heating a post office; and
where said coal was delivered and used; and where said
vendor borrowed money at a bank, promising to repay
the bank from proceeds of the sale of said coal; and
where thereupon the Government refused to pay for

421221-42-CC-vol. 94-49

94 C. Cls.

CONTRACTS-Continued.

said coal on the ground that vendor had been "paid
in full" by reason of said loan; it is held that plaintiff,
executrix of vendor's estate, is entitled to recover.
Belcher, 137.

XI. It is held that the evidence submitted, as a whole, shows
that the defendant did not by any act, conduct or
ruling of its agents, inspectors or engineers breach any
provision of the contract with plaintiffs. Western
Construction Co., 175.

XII. The evidence shows that the contracting officer acted
reasonably and within the provisions of the contract in
classifying the laborers obtained through the National
Reemployment Service and employed by plaintiffs,
and plaintiffs made no written protest or claim with
respect thereto within the time required by the con-
tract. Id.

XIII. Where on plaintiffs' claim for remission of liquidated
damages the contracting officer denied all claims except
a claim for 51 days' delay during high water and 1 day's
delay on account of strikes; and where said decision of
contracting officer was on appeal affirmed by the Sec-
retary of the Interior; it is held that such decisions were
in accord with the facts in the case and were not arbi-
trary or grossly erroneous, and plaintiffs are entitled
to recover only the sum allowed by said decisions. Id.
XIV. Where plaintiff failed to complete the contract for con-
struction of an extension to the then existing heating
plant and installation of a new steam distribution system
at the Naval Ammunition Depot, Fort Mifflin, Pa., and
said contract was thereupon terminated by the Govern-
ment, it is held that the evidence adduced fails to sustain
plaintiff's claim that delay or dilatory action by defend-
ant's officers in the disposition of plaintiff's plans and
drawings resulted in damage to plaintiff. Continental
Contracting Company, 244.

XV. Where the contract provided that any change in the work
or in the time for performance which resulted in any
increase of cost estimated to exceed $500 should be
submitted to a board provided for in such contract; it
is held that the change order issued to plaintiff, not
exceeding $500, was not within the jurisdiction of said
board, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
XVI. Where certain amounts were withheld from plaintiff on
account of an alleged underpayment by plaintiff of its
employees, it is held that it was incumbent on plaintiff

Id.