929

granted certiorari the same day, viz. June 11, 1956. 351 U. S. 981. If there is to be uniformity in the application of the principles announced in those two companion cases, the judgment below in the instant case cannot stand. Accordingly we now grant the petition for rehearing, vacate the order denying certiorari, grant the petition for certiorari, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims on the authority of United States v. Allen-Bradley Co., supra, and National Lead Co. v. Commissioner, supra.

We have consistently ruled that the interest in finality of litigation must yield where the interests of justice would make unfair the strict application of our rules. This policy finds expression in the manner in which we have exercised our power over our own judgments, both in civil and criminal cases. Clark v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 337 U. S. 953; Goldbaum v. United States, 347 U. S. 1007; Banks v. United States, 347 U. S. 1007; McFee v. United States, 347 U. S. 1007; Remmer v. United States, 348 U. S. 904; Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U. S. 413; Boudoin v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., 350 U. S. 811; Cahill v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 351 U. S. 183; Achilli v. United States, 352 U. S. 916, 1023.

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 506-53]

[137 C. Cls. 267; 353 U. S. 950]

Transportation charges, Commodity Credit Corporation; statute of limitations. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 6, 1957.

434170-58-61

137 C. Cls.

GEORGE EDWARD LEONARD, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 182-55]

[136 C. Cls. 686; 353 U. S. 976]

Pay and allowances; retired Army pay; reserve status. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 27, 1957.

MORRIS E. ADAMS, PETITIONER, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 350-55]

[137 C. Cls. 52; 353 U. S. 977]

Suit for salary; appeal to Civil Service Commission. Petition dismissed.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court May 27, 1957.

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., SUCCESSOR ON MERGER TO KOPPERS UNITED COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

[No. 161-52]

[133 C. Cls. 22; 353 U. S. 983]

Excess profits tax; unused excess profits credit carryback. Plaintiff to recover.

Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court June 3, 1957.

INDEX DIGEST

ACT OF JULY 24, 1941.

See Pay and Allowances XXXI, XXXII.

ACT OF JUNE 29, 1948.

See Pay and Allowances XXXIV, XXXV.
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

See Suit for Salary IX, X, XI.

ARBITRARY ACTION.

See Contracts XII, XIII; Pay and Allowances XXXVII.
BOULDER CANYON PROJECT ACT.

See Contracts XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX.

CADET SERVICE.

See Pay and Allowances X.

CAPITAL NOTE.

See Taxes XXXIII, XXXIV.

CAREER COMPENSATION ACT.

See Pay and Allowances XI, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION.

See Taxes XV, XVI, XVII.

CHARTER ACT.

See Transportation Charges I, II, III, IV, V.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

See Suit for Salary I, VI, IX, X, XI, XIV.

CIVIL SERVICE STATUS.

See Suit for Salary III, IV.

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.
See Taxes VI, VII, VIII.

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.
See Transportation Charges I, II, III, IV, V.
COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES.

See Contracts XIV, XV.

CONGRESSIONAL PROVINCE.

See Pay and Allowances XIV, XV.

CONTRACTING OFFICER.

See Contracts XII, XIII.

933

137 C. Cls.

CONTRACTS.

I. Plaintiff's suit followed denial of its claim for extra-
legal relief under the Lucas Act by the War Con-
tract Hardship Claims Board. The Board rejected
the claim on the ground that plaintiff had not made
a written request for relief from the War Depart-
ment prior to August 14, 1945, as required by sec-
tion 3 of the act. Plaintiff's losses resulted from
the assessment of liquidated damages for delay in
delivery of cloth under a contract with the Army
Quartermaster Corps. When the assessment of
damages was originally made plaintiff appealed the
decision of the contracting officer to the Quarter-
master General. The appeal was denied because
the delay was found to be not due to unforeseeable
causes beyond plaintiff's control. Upon passage of
the Lucas Act plaintiff sought relief through the
provisions of that act. It is held that the steps
taken by plaintiff in the way of a written request for
relief were steps having application to its adminis-
trative rights under its contract and did not con-
stitute a proper request as required by the Lucas
Act. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Ray-
laine Worsteds, Inc., 54.

United States 74 (17)

II. The court has jurisdiction to award recovery to
claimants under the Lucas Act only where a proper
written request was filed prior to August 14, 1945,
and the relief requested must be of an extralegal
nature. Id.

III. Letters written by others in behalf of plaintiff to the
agency head did not constitute a request for extra-
legal relief. Plaintiff would have to make his own
request or through his attorney. Id.

United States 74 (17)

IV. Earlier action of the court in overruling defendant's
motion to dismiss (119 C. Cls. 838) does not con-
stitute the "law of the case" nor preclude the
court, after a hearing on the merits, from now
rendering a decision as to whether there was a
proper request for extralegal relief. Id.

Courts 99 (2)

V. Plaintiff's contract with the Army for the manufacture
of 250,000 folding cots was terminated for late

137 C. Cls.

CONTRACTS-Continued

delivery and 98,000 cots were purchased under a
reletting from another manufacturer. Both in-
vitations to bid provided for delivery at the plant
of the contractor but stated that transportation
costs in shipping the cots to certain designated
locations would be considered in evaluating the bids.
Plaintiff was charged $33,133.80 for excess factory
costs resulting from termination of its contract but
claims that it is entitled to credit for the amount
saved by the Government in transportation costs
under the new contract. Plaintiff's plant was located
in Columbus, Mississippi, and at the time of termina-
tion of its contract was obligated to make deliveries
in Ohio and Georgia. The successor contractor,
whose plant was located in Granville, New York,
was also required under its contract to make deliver-
ies in these states, but the Government later ordered
it to make these deliveries to New York and Penn-
sylvania instead. The accessibility of the successor
contractor's plant to the newly designated locations
effected a substantial saving to the Government in
transportation costs and it is for this saving that
plaintiff asks credit on its contract liability. It is
held that plaintiff is entitled to recover and afte
allowance of the Government's counterclaim in the
amount of $1,868.40 judgment is entered for plain-
tiff for $22,388.23. National Wood Products,
Inc., 83.

United States 72 (12)

VI. Plaintiff's contention that the bid of a California con-
cern, lower than its own original bid, should have
been accepted on the reletting is not sustained.
The extra transportation costs would have resulted
in a higher cost to the Government than the con-
tract with the New York firm. Id.
United States 72 (12)

VII. Plaintiff, having been indebted to the Government
in connection with renegotiated war contracts,
sues for the difference between six percent interest,
which the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board
allegedly illegally charged it, and four percent,
which it describes as a fair and equitable rate of
interest. It is held that, while the renegotiation
regulation providing for an interest rate of six
percent is invalid, plaintiff, in the instant case,
made its payment voluntarily and is, therefore, not