Case ID: us-ct-cl_62/html/0765-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Stone", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARTSVILLE OIL MILL v. UNITED STATES
    [60 C. Cls. 712; 271 U. S. 43]
    Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:
    1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear and decide a claim, existing under Judicial Code, section 145, was not affected by a resolution of the Senate referring to that court for consideration and report (Judicial Code, section 151) a bill for payment of the claim.
    2. The fact that a Government contractor signed a settlement after negotiations in which Government officers threatened to break the existing contract if the settlement were not accepted does not of itself support a legal inference that the settlement was procured by duress. Freund v. United States, 260 TJ. S. 60, distinguished.
    3. A threat to break a contract does not constitute duress in the absence of evidence of some probable consequences of it to person or property for which the remedy afforded by the courts would be inadequate.
    4. Mutual promises of the parties are adequate consideration sustaining a compromise of a disputed contract.
   Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 12, 1926.