Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/94390/merritt-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2017-12-15 20:02:08
Document Index: 564425907

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 1']

Merritt Vs United States - Citation 94390 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Merritt Vs. United States - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/94390
Case Number 267 U.S. 338
merritt v. united states - 267 u.s. 338 (1925) u.s. supreme court merritt v. united states, 267 u.s. 338 (1925) merritt v. united states no. 159 argued january 5, 1925 decided march 2, 1925 267 u.s. 338 appeal from the court of claims syllabus 1. action by a subcontractor in the court of claims held not maintainable under the dent act, §§ 1 and 4, the petition not showing an agreement with the plaintiff entered into by or under authority of the secretary of war, or performed, etc., prior to november 12, 1918, or a claim presented before june 30, 1919, or that, before a payment was made by the government to the prime contractor, the plaintiff had made expenditures, etc., "with the knowledge or approval of any agent.....
Merritt v. United States - 267 U.S. 338 (1925)
U.S. Supreme Court Merritt v. United States, 267 U.S. 338 (1925)
1. Action by a subcontractor in the Court of Claims held not maintainable under the Dent Act, §§ 1 and 4, the petition not showing an agreement with the plaintiff entered into by or under authority of the Secretary of War, or performed, etc., prior to November 12, 1918, or a claim presented before June 30, 1919, or that, before a payment was made by the government to the prime contractor, the plaintiff had made expenditures, etc., "with the knowledge or approval of any agent of the Secretary of War duly authorized thereunto." P. 267 U. S. 340 .
2. Where a contractor, upon settling with the government under the Dent Act, induced the claimant to release his subcontract for less than was due him by fraudulently misrepresenting to him the basis upon which the settlement was made, and the government, learning this, exacted a repayment to itself from the contractor of of an amount equal to that of which the claimant had thus been defrauded, but it did not appear that the exaction was for the claimant's benefit, held that the claimant had no cause of action to recover this amount from the United States under the Tucker Act, since the United States was under no express contract to pay the claimant, and none was to be implied in fact. P. 267 U. S. 340 .
a plain, concise statement of the facts relied on, not leaving the defendant in doubt as to what must be met. P. 267 U. S. 341 .
Plaintiff cannot recover under the Dent Act. There are three obstacles. It does not appear, as required by § 1, that, prior to November 12, 1918, an agreement with the plaintiff, express or implied, was entered into by the Secretary of War, or "by any officer or agent acting under his authority, direction, or instruction, or that of the President." Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 385 ; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 592 . It does not appear, as required by § 1, that any such agreement had been "performed, . . . or expenditures . . . made or obligations incurred upon the faith of the same . . . prior to" November 12, 1918. Price Fire & Water Proofing Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 179 , 261 U. S. 183 . It does not appear, as required by § 1, that the claim sued on was presented before June 30, 1919. The Dent Act affords relief, although there is no agreement "executed in the manner prescribed by law," but only under the conditions stated. The plaintiff is not helped by § 4, which deals with subcontracts, among other reasons, because it does not appear, as therein prescribed, that, before the payment made by the government to the prime contractor, the plaintiff had
any basis. Nor does it set forth facts from which such a contract will be implied. The pleader may have intended to sue for money had and received. But no facts are alleged which afford any basis for a claim that the repayment made by the mills was exacted by the government for the benefit of the plaintiff. The Tucker Act does not give a right of action against the United States in those cases where, if the transaction were between private parties, recovery could be had upon a contract implied in law. Tempel v. United States, 248 U. S. 121 ; Sutton v. United States, 256 U. S. 575 , 256 U. S. 581 . For aught that appears, repayment was compelled solely for the benefit of the government, under the proviso in § 1 of the Dent Act, which authorizes recovery of money paid under a settlement if it has been defrauded.