Case ID: us-ct-cl_61/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Booth, Judge, Graham, Judge; Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE H. AMICK v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. D-851.
    Decided November 2, 1925]
    
      On Demurrer to Amended Petition
    
    
      Requisition; contract; advisory communication. — Advice received’ from the Government as to details of manufacture, which if' ignored might result disastrously to the contractor and if fol- . lowed result in the production of extra articles for whicn the Government promised a ready sale, is not a contract nor a taking of the contractor’s property.
    
      The Reporter's statement of the case:
    
      Mr. W. F. Norris, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Herman J. Galloway, for the demurrer.
    
      Mr. Raymond M. Hudson, opposed.
    The petition alleges that the plaintiff had a contract with the Signal Corps, U. S. Army, to furnish 50,000 feet of walnut lumber graded for propellers; that he received a, communication from the Director of Aircraft Production asking him to cut his logs in such manner as to convert the balánce of them into flitches adapted for the manufacture-of gunstocks; that if he would thus cooperate the Ordnance-Department would find him “ a ready sale for same at a price of $80.00 for 1,000 square feet board measure f. o. b. a near-by gunstock mill.”
    The petition further alleges that plaintiff replied to this, communication, expressing his acquiescence but objecting" to the price suggested; that he was verbally instructed and. directed by a duly authorized agent of the Government so to cut the logs; that he complied with said communication and verbal instructions, and by refusal of the Government to take said flitches was damaged, etc.
   Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Government demurs to plaintiff’s petition as amended. The alleged cause of action is predicated upon a supposed requisition order. The instrument relied upon appears in the petition; and it, together with the reply of the plaintiff, is too lengthy to be repeated here. The material allegations of the petition do not disclose either a contract or requisition order. The petition misconceives the legal effect of a dejiartmental communication addressed to contractors, of which the plaintiff was one, engaged in the manufacture of hardwood lumber. There was no obligation imposed upon the contractor to do more than give voluntary heed to an advisory communication and take advantage of advance information, which if ignored might result disastrously to him. Manifestly the Government had no intention of contracting or taking the plaintiff’s supply of hardwood lumber. What was done was to acquaint the plaintiff with the details of manufacture so as to assure him that under present conditions the Government could and would point out an available customer.

The demurrer will be sustained and the petition dismissed. It is so ordered.

Graham, Judge; Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.