G. W. DANFORTH, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED
[122 C. Cls. 785; 344 U. S. 912]
Pay and allowances; retired Navy officer not entitled to "proceed time." Petition dismissed.
Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court January 5, 1953.
JOSEPH B. BRYANT, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES
[122 C. Cls. 460; 344 U. S. 913]
Suit for salary; Civil Service employee in Post Office separated for good of the service and later reinstated. Petition dismissed.
Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court January 5, 1953.
HOLMES PROJECTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES
[123 C. Cls. 278; 344 U. S. 912]
Taxes; income and excess profits tax; income earned by corporation under Government contracts properly accrued in year earned although the amount was subject to renegotiation in a later year. Petition dismissed.
Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court January 5, 1953.
ACCELERATED AMORTIZATION.
See Taxes XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII.
ACCOUNT STATED.
See Statute of Limitations V, VI, VII, VIII.
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.
See Pay and Allowances V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X.
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
See Contract Settlement Act XV.
AGREEMENT OF ENROLLMENT.
See Suit For Salary IX, X, XI, XII, XIII.
ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION.
See Contracts LV, LVI, LVII, LVIII.
APPEAL, FAILURE TO.
See Contracts XXXIX.
"APPOINTMENT BY THE EXECUTIVE.”
See Pay and Allowances XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII.
ARMY AND NAVY, SERVICE IN BOTH.
See Pay and Allowances XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII.
ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT.
I. Where on December 30, 1944, the Graham Ship
Repair Company, a partnership, entered into a
contact with the Navy Department for certain
ship repair work; and where, thereafter, the con-
tractor arranged with plaintiff, a banking in-
stitution, for the financing of the work under the
contract and as security made an assignment
of the proceeds payable under the contract, all
in accordance with the provisions of the Assign-
ment of Claims Act (54 Stat. 1029); it is held
that the claim of the United States against the
contractor for taxes due and unpaid has priority
over the claim for the assignee for the amount
due to the contractor for work performed under
the contract. See United States v. Munsey
Trust Company, 322 U. S. 234, and other deci-
sions cited. Central Bank, 237.
United States 111.
ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT-Continued
II. During the performance of the contract, the Gov-
ment ascertained that the contractor had failed
to pay taxes representing amounts withheld
from salaries and wages of employees or laborers
engaged on work under the contract, in accord-
ance with Sections 1401 and 1622 of the Internal
Revenue Code, and thereupon the contract was
terminated by the Government. The partners
of the Graham company were indicted for willful
attempt to defeat and evade the payment of the
withheld taxes and they pleaded guilty. Id.
United States
III. At the time the contract was terminated there was
due to the contractor, for work performed, the
sum of $110,966.08. At that time also the Gra-
ham Company was indebted to the plaintiff for
an amount in excess of $110,966.08 for advances
made in connection with the performance of the
contract. Plaintiff's claim for the balance due
under the contract was denied by the General
Accounting Office and the amount of $110,966.08
was offset in partial satisfaction of the tax in-
debtedness of the Graham Company to the United
States. It is held that plaintiff is not entitled
to recover. Id.
IV. It is held that the indebtedness of the assignor to
the United States for the taxes in question was
not so independent of the contract of December
30, 1944, as to preclude the Government from
offsetting the balance due under the contract
against such tax indebtedness. Id.
United States
V. The indebtedness of the Graham Company for the
taxes in question was not entirely dependent
upon the instant contract but the indebtedness
was not entirely independent of such contract.
In order to be independent, as that term is used
and intended by Congress in the Assignment of
Claims Act, the indebtedness must arise irre-
spective of, exclusive of, and separate from, the
contract and must have no relation with such
contract. Id.
ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT-Continued
VI. The defendant in the instant case was not a mere
stakeholder but was the owner of the fund to be
disbursed, and was also the owner of a claim
against said fund. As a general proposition of
law, the Government was in a better position
than plaintiff as a claimant to a fund repre-
senting the balance due under the contract. Id.
United States 74.
See Contracts LXXVII, LXXVIII, LXXIX, LXXX, LXXXI.
BID, VALIDITY OF.
See Contracts LXIX, LXX, LXXI, LXXII, LXXIII, LXXIV,
LXXV, LXXVI.
BYRNES-BLUM AGREEMENT.
See Eminent Domain VII, VIII, IX, X.
CAREER COMPENSATION ACT.
See Pay and Allowances XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII.
I. Where plaintiff, a classified Civil Service Employee,
entitled to the benefits of Section 14 of the
Veterans' Preference Act of June 27, 1944 (58
Stat. 390), as amended by the Act of August
4, 1947 (61 Stat. 723), sues to recover salary for
the period of his wrongful reduction in rank
and compensation; and where there is no mate-
rial issue as to the essential facts; it is held that
plaintiff is entitled to recover as a matter of
law. Defendant's motion for summary judgment
overruled and plaintiff's motion allowed. Entry
of judgment for plaintiff suspended pending the
filing of a stipulation by the parties showing
the amount due in accordance with the opinion
of the court. Gregory, 794.
Federal Civil Procedure 2481.
II. Following an official job survey, plantiff was noti-
fied on May 4, 1949, that he was being reduced
in rank and compensation. However this notice
failed to comply with the requirements of Section
863 of the Veterans' Preference Act and was can-
celled. Thereafter, on May 11, 1949, proper no-
tice of the proposed demotion was issued, to
which plaintiff made no reply and on May 25,
1949, he was notified that he would be reduced
to the lower grade effective June 19, 1949, unless
he appealed within 10 days. On appeal to the
|