ORDERS FEBRUARY 1, 1959 to MAY 31, 1959 FEBRUARY 11, 1959 No. 265-53. Baumhoff-Marshall, Inc. No. 315-53. Idaho-Canadian Dredging Company, A Corporation. Nos. 316-53, 317-53, and 335-53. Idaho-Canadian Dredging Company (A Corporation), et al. No. 336-53. Warren Dredging Corporation (A Corpora No. 345-53. No. 379-53. tion). Gold Hill Dredging Company. No. 380-53. Robert P. Porter, et al. Plaintiffs, gold mine operators, sued to recover just compensation for the alleged taking of their properties through the operation of War Production Order L-208. On defendant's motion, the petitions were dismissed in an opinion per curiam, as follows: The defendant has moved to dismiss the petitions in these cases on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Central Eureka, 357 U.S. 155. There the Court held that the damage alleged to have resulted to the gold mine operators because of the issuance of Order L-208 by the War Production Board "was incidental to the Government's lawful regulation of matters reasonably deemed essential to the war effort" and therefore not compensable as a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs here, all gold mine operators making claims on the theory that their property was taken by the issuance of L-208, urge distinctions which they allege place their claims outside the decision in United 145 C. Cls. States v. Central Eureka, supra. We find those distinctions to be without substance. Defendant's motions to dismiss will be granted and plaintiffs' petitions will be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. No. 490-58. APRIL 10, 1959. Mella Alvina Hoover. Damages in tort. Upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition, together with the arguments made by defendant's counsel and plaintiff, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiff's petition dismissed on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the petition. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied June 10, 1959. No. 66-55. APRIL 17, 1959 Burnham Chemical Company. Contract lease. In this case the following order was entered: This case comes before the court pursuant to a report by the trial commissioner and the briefs and argument of counsel. Upon consideration thereof, and on the grounds that the claims alleged in plaintiff's petition are barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 2501, IT IS ORDERED this seventeenth day of April, 1959, that plaintiff's petition be and the same is dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's counter-claim be and the same is dismissed. BY THE COURT. No. 443-55. Westinghouse Electric Corporation. No. 514-55. General Electric Company. No. 105-56. Philco Corporation.* No. 168-56. Chrysler Corporation.** *Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 12, 1959, 361 U.S. 825. Rehearing denied June 27, 1960, 363 U.S. 857. **Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 9, 1959, 361 U.S. 887. 745 No. 216-56. Whirlpool-Seeger Corporation. Excise tax. On the basis of the decisions by this Court in General Motors Corp. v. United States, 142 C. Cls. 842, and 142 C. Cls. 878, cert. denied 358 U.S. 866, and Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 140 C. Cls. 487, cert. denied 358 U.S. 864, it was ordered that defendant's motions for judgments on the pleadings be granted, and plaintiffs' petitions dismissed. No. 38-58. APRIL 17, 1959 William Gordon Black. Civilian pay. Upon consideration of defendant's motion for summary judgment, and on the grounds that the requirements of section 14 of the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 863, have been afforded plaintiff, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiff's petition dismissed. No. 251-58. APRIL 17, 1959 Harry Becker & Company, et al. Transportation tax. Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, and on defendant's motion for summary judgment, together with oral argument by counsel, and on the basis of the decision by this court in Armour and Company, et al. v. United States, 144 C. Cls. 697, it was ordered that plaintiffs' motions be denied, that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiffs' petition dismissed. Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing denied November 4, 1959. No. 260-57. MAY 13, 1959 Erwin G. Braham, et al. Civilian pay; overtime. Upon consideration of defendant's motion for summary judgment, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiffs' petition dismissed on the ground that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501. No. 193-58. MAY 13, 1959 Maurice M. Murphy. 145 C. Cls. Civilian pay. Upon consideration of defendant's motion for summary judgment, together with oral argument, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiff's petition dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and his petition fails to state a cause of action. Dyke Cullum. No. 451-58. MAY 13, 1959 Soil Bank payments. Upon consideration of defendant's motion for summary judgment, together with oral argument by counsel, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted and plaintiff's petition dismissed, the court being of the opinion that the action of the A.S.C. Committee was in effect a termination of the agreement, and that consequently this court lacks jurisdiction, Soil Bank Act, 7 U.S.C. (1958) § 1821 (a) (i). Fred A. Gattas. No. 540-58. MAY 13, 1959 Military pay; disability retired pay. Upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition for the reason that the claim asserted therein is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and on oral argument by counsel, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiff's petition dismissed. No. 4-59. MAY 13, 1959 George Edward Barnhart. Infringement of patents. Upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition insofar as compensation is claimed with respect to three of the listed patents, together with oral argument by counsel, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiff's petition as to the three named patents in defendant's motion be dismissed. 745 Warren A. Hill. No. 51-59. MAY 13, 1959 Military pay; active duty pay. Upon consideration of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition on the grounds that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501, it was ordered that defendant's motion be granted, and plaintiff's petition dismissed. No. 492-56. MAY 13, 1959 Sparton Corporation, formerly The Sparks-Withington Company. Income tax. Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its petition, together with oral argument of counsel, it was ordered that plaintiff's motion be granted. |