163 FRANKFURTER, J., concurring in part. coverable under that Act for suffering "injury." That term, it seems to me, is sufficiently broad to include bodily injury which nowadays is more specifically characterized as "occupational disease." Accordingly, I agree that recovery may be had under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for silicosis, where the facts sustain such a claim, as is illustrated by the case of Sadowski v. Long Island R. Co., 292 N. Y. 448, 55 N. E. 2d 497. On the other hand, I agree with the Missouri Supreme Court that occupational diseases cannot be fitted into the category of "accidents" for which the Boiler Inspection Act devised a scheme of regulation and a basis of liability. 36 Stat. 913, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 22–34. I think I appreciate the humane impulse which seeks to bring occupational diseases within such a regime. But due regard for the limits of judicial interpretation precludes such free-handed application of a statute to situations outside its language and its purpose. To do so, moreover, is, I believe, a disservice to the humane ends which are sought to be promoted. Legislation is needed which will effectively meet the social obligations which underlie the incidence of occupational disease. See National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, 9 & 10 Geo. 6, 488, particularly Part IV. The need for such legislation becomes obscured and the drive for it retarded if encouragement is given to the thought that there are now adequate remedies for occupational diseases in callings subject to Congressional control. The result of the present decision is to secure for this petitioner the judgment which the jury awarded him. It does not secure a proper system for dealing with occupational diseases. · I would reverse this judgment and remand the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri for proceedings consistent with this opinion. MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, and MR. JUSTICE BURTON join in this opinion. UNITED STATES v. PENN FOUNDRY & MANUFACTURING CO., INC. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 253. Argued January 7, 10, 1949.-Decided May 31, 1949. It was error for the Court of Claims to give a judgment to a manufacturer against the United States for loss of anticipated profits under a contract for the manufacture of gun mounts for the Navy which was cancelled a few days after it was awarded, when the Court failed to make any affirmative finding that the manufacturer was ready and able to perform its contractual obligations and when it made affirmative findings which precluded any inference that such readiness and capacity existed. Pp. 199, 210-214. (a) In the absence of actual tenders of the required gun mounts, the manufacturer's readiness and capacity to deliver them in the quantities and at the times required by the contract was essential to its right to receive payments under the contract. Pp. 210-211. (b) The affirmative findings in this case add up to an inescapable ultimate finding that the manufacturer was neither ready nor able to make the deliveries required by the contract. Pp. 202-203, 212-213. (c) A finding that, "If the plaintiff had been permitted to perform its contract, it would have made a net profit of not less than $80,000," was no more than a rough estimate of the amount of its reasonably anticipated profits (if the contract were completed) and cannot be taken as a finding that it was ready and able to make the deliveries upon which such profits depended. P. 213. (d) The mere hope of being able to obtain from the Government gratuitous extensions of time or concessions in the numbers of gun mounts to be delivered cannot justify an award of money damages for loss of unearned anticipated profits dependent upon such gratuitous extensions or concessions. Pp. 213-214. 110 Ct. Cl. 374, 75 F. 2d 319, reversed. The Court of Claims awarded a judgment to a manufacturer for loss of anticipated profits under a contract for the manufacture of gun mounts for the Navy which was cancelled a few days after it was awarded. 110 Ct. 198 Opinion of the Court. Cl. 374, 75 F. 2d 319. This Court granted certiorari. 335 U. S. 857. Reversed, p. 214. Melvin Richter argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Morison and Paul A. Sweeney. Robert H. McNeill and David G. Bress argued the cause for respondent. With them on the brief were Sheldon E. Bernstein and T. Bruce Fuller. MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action which was brought in the Court of Claims by the respondent, Penn Foundry and Manufacturing Company, Inc., against the United States for loss of anticipated profits alleged to have been caused by the latter's cancellation of a contract for gun mounts for the Navy. The cancellation occurred a few days after the contract had been awarded by the United States to the respondent on February 23, 1942. The question presented is whether the findings of fact made by the Court of Claims are sufficient to sustain its judgment requiring the United States to pay for such loss. 110 Ct. Cl. 374, 75 F. Supp. 319. We hold that they are not. We so hold because of (1) the absence of any finding of the readiness and capacity of the respondent to perform certain of its contractual obligations upon which its profits were contingent and (2) the presence of certain affirmative findings which preclude the drawing of any sufficient inference of such readiness and capacity from the other findings. The record includes only the pleadings and accompanying exhibits filed in the Court of Claims and that court's special findings of fact, conclusion of law, opinion, judgment and refusal to grant a new trial. We do not have before us the report which its Commissioner made to the Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. Court of Claims or the testimony upon which he or that court relied. While additional claims were made by the respondent, in its original petition to the Court of Claims and while the United States originally contested the binding force of the contract, the errors specified in the present proceeding question only the right of the respondent to recover $80,000, as damages for its alleged loss of anticipated profits. We granted certiorari because of the ..possible relation of the result in this case to claims under many war contracts cancelled by the United States. 335 U. S. 857. The findings of fact show the following: In 1911, the respondent bought a manufacturing plant consisting of six buildings in Waynesboro, Virginia. The main buildings, each 57 x 100 feet, had been built in 1890 and were referred to respectively as the machine shop, the foundry and the blacksmith shop. At one time the respondent manufactured circular saws and, at another, did work on brake shoes. Since 1931, the plant had been used only for minor engagements, requiring not more than four or five employees. It had been idle for some years when, late in 1940 or early in 1941, the respondent's officers became desirous of engaging in the National Defense Program. Most of those officers were then in other businesses at or near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. One stockholder and director was in the real estate business in Waynesboro. He had been the local manager of the plant when it was in operation and had continued thereafter as such and as the statutory agent of the company. In January, 1941, the respondent engaged an additional man as assistant to the president and, on February 24, 1942, an engineer as general manager. In April, 1941, it submitted a proposal to the Navy for the manufacture of 500 3-inch 50-caliber gun mounts. In July, a representative of the Gun Mount Section of the Navy Department inspected the plant. Following a conference in 198 Opinion of the Court. September, the respondent was asked by the Government to furnish information as to financial ability, commitments of subcontractors, and a detailed study of the machine tool operations, predicated upon a possible award of 150 3-inch 50-caliber mounts. In October and December, the respondent submitted additional information and slightly modified its proposals. December 22, the respondent's proposal as to prices, quantities, delivery schedule, payments and options for additional mounts was accepted as satisfactory and the respondent agreed to secure a letter from a surety company indicating that a bond of the nature required by the Navy's Bureau of Supplies and Accounts would be furnished. The respondent received a "letter of intent," dated December 29, 1941, signed by the Paymaster General of the Navy as contracting officer and approved by the Under Secretary of the Navy. It stated that it was anticipated that the Navy Department would place an order with the respondent for the manufacture of 150 gun mounts. It specified the delivery of two complete mounts in May, 1942, three in June, five in July, and thereafter at a minimum rate of ten mounts per month. The letter also authorized the respondent to purchase materials and spare parts, subject to confirmation by the Government's purchasing officer, and to proceed with the production of the mounts in anticipation of the placing of the order for their production. However, under date of January 7, 1942, the Government held up this authorization of expenditures until such time as the respondent furnished the Government with the firm commitment of an approved surety company to act as surety on a performance bond. January 10, the respondent accepted the letter of intent. January 29, the Navy Department stated that the necessary letter from a surety company had not been received and that failure promptly to submit such a letter might result in the termination of the |