Case Name: LOUIS KLEBE AND JULES KLEBE, COPARTNERS TRADING AS L. KLEBE & COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-03-20
Citations: 57 Ct. Cl. 160
Docket Number: No. 34638
Parties: LOUIS KLEBE AND JULES KLEBE, COPARTNERS TRADING AS L. KLEBE & COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Booth, Judge, concur.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 160–185

Head Matter:
LOUIS KLEBE AND JULES KLEBE, COPARTNERS TRADING AS L. KLEBE & COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 34638.
Decided March 20, 1922.]
On the Proofs.
Eminent domain; fifth amendment; implied contract. — The right to bring a suit against the United States in the Court of Claims for a taking under eminent domain is not founded upon the fifth amendment to the Constitution, but upon the existence of an implied contract with the United States, and where from the circumstances of the taking there can be no implied promise by the United States to pay, there can be no taking under eminent domain, and where the United States, at the time of the taking, claims title to the property taken, there can be no such promise to pay implied,, and an action to recover compensation as for a taking would sound in tort.
Same; express contract. — Where property is taken in accordance with the provisions of an express contract for its purchase, it is sufficient to rebut an implication that it was taken under eminent domain.
The Reporter's statement of the case:
Mr. Daniel C. Donoghue for the plaintiffs.
Mr. George II. Foster, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett for the defendant.
The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. Plaintiffs, Louis Klebe and Jules Klebe, are copartners, trading as L. Klebe & Company, citizens of the United States, and residents of and doing business in the city of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania.
II. Plaintiffs have always borne true faith and allegiance to the United States, having always and at all times been loyal citizens thereof and have never been guilty of any act or acts of disloyalty to or toward the Government of the United States.
III. Plaintiffs are the sole owners of the claim herein presented and sued upon, no part thereof having at any time been assigned or transferred.
IY. Between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, the United States was engaged in a great war with the German Empire in Europe, on the high seas and in other parts of the world.
Y. At and prior to May 12, 1918, Bates & Rogers Construction Company were erecting for the United States an inland storage depot at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, for use in the prosecution of the then pending war, and in constructing said depot steam shovels were used. Said work was being performed under a contract between the Bates & Rogers Construction Company and the United States, a copy of which, marked “ Exhibit G,” is attached to and made a part of these findings.
VI. Plaintiffs were the owners of an Erie traction steam shovel B-74, which Bates & Rogers Construction Company were desirous of leasing for use in erecting the above inland storage depot. Bates & Rogers Construction Company leased the shovel from plaintiffs for $25 per day, and plaintiffs delivered said shovel to Bates & Rogers Construction Company on May 18, 1918, upon which date the rental commenced. In June, 1918, the plaintiffs and Bates & Rogers Construction Company executed the written lease, dated May 18,1918, which is set forth as “ Exhibit F ” in the plaintiffs’ petition. The correspondence and facts preceding the execution of that lease are set forth as follows:
Plaintiffs were the owners of one Erie traction steam shovel No. 74, and Bates & Eogers Construction Company was desirous of leasing the said shovel for use in connection with the erection of the above inland storage depot at New Cumberland, Pa. Plaintiffs were represented by the Ter-williger Equipment Company, who were brokers, and whose business it was to negotiate leases on construction machinery. After verbal conferences between representatives of the Bates & Eogers Construction Company and the Ter-williger Equipment Company, the latter company wrote to the former as follows:
May 15, 1918.
Messrs. Bates & Bogies,
New Cumberland', Pa.
Attention Mr. Whitney.
GeNtlemeN: Confirming conversation with you of even date over the telephone, wish to say it is our understanding that we are to ship to Major W. Morava, construction quartermaster for Bates & Eogers, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Eailroad delivery, one Thew and one Erie revolving shovel as inspected and accepted by your Mr. Oscar Sackei’son to-day, rental prices on the Thew to be $24.50 per calendar day, and $25.00 per calendar day on the Erie, with the understanding you pay loading charges upon their return and freight to and from their present location, rental period to start on date of bill of lading showing shipment and cease on date of bill of lading showing return. Also we are to furnish you a competent steam-shovel operator, who is to ride these shovels through to New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, and that their time is to be charged with the loading charges up until they reach New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, at which time they will report to you and be put on your pay roll.
We are having cars placed for these two shovels and expect to have the Thew loaded by to-morrow night and the Erie not later than Friday.
We wish to assure you that we are doing everything possible to help your Mr. Sackerson. We have also wired Thew Shovel people to express two center sections of grates which are in need of replacement. We will have formal leases made up and mailed you within the next day or so covering these shovels.
We can get you one and probably two more shovels if you need them,' one a A-l Thew, the other an Erie, which we trust will be interesting to you in the event of your wanting more shovels. Price would be $25.00 per day on the two mentioned above.
Yours, very truly, TeHWIMJGEK EQUIPMENT COMPANY. HEG-MMF.
Plaintiffs made delivery of said shovel on May 18, 1918.
On May 21, 1918, plaintiffs forwarded a form of lease signed by them to the Bates & Rogers Construction Company. A copy of said lease is attached to the petition, marked “ Exhibit A,” and a copy of the letter transmitting the same is attached to the petition and marked “Exhibit B.” Both exhibits are made a part hereof by reference. Said lease was not signed by the Bates & Rogers Construction Company. On June 3, 1918, the Bates & Rogers Construction Company forwarded a lease to plaintiffs. A copy of the letter transmitting the same is attached to the petition, marked “Exhibit C,” and is made a part hereof by reference. The contract of lease sent by the Bates & Rogers Construction Company for the signature of Klebe & Company is attached to the petition, marked “ Exhibit F,” was duly executed and signed by plaintiffs and returned to the Bates & Rogers Construction Company, which contract was in turn executed and signed by the Bates & Rogers Construction Company and returned to plaintiffs on June 17, 1918. A copy of the letter returning the said duly signed contract is attached to the petition as “ Exhibit E,” and is made a part hereof by reference. At the time the said contract was submitted by the Bates & Rogers construction Company to plaintiffs a copy of sec. C, Article 2, of the contract between the United States and the Bates & Rogers Construction Company for the erection of the Interior Storage Depot, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, was physically annexed to said “ Exhibit F.” One of the original executed copies is attached hereto.
VII. The sum of $4,225 was paid to plaintiffs by Bates & Rogers Construction Company in the amounts, at the times, and for rental for said shovel for the periods stated, as follows:
Payments by Bates <fi Rogers Construction Comyamj to claimants.
Bate oí payment. July 15th-. Aug.l9lli. Sept. 18th. Amount. $1.100.00 775.00 1,050.00 Period covered. 44 days 5/18 to 6/30. 31 “ 7/1 “ 7/31. 42 “ 8/1 “ 9/11. Bate of payment. Oct. 9th_ Nov. 7th... Bee. 6th... Amount. $525.00 700.00 75.00 Period covered. 21 days 9/12 to 10/2. 28 “ 10/3 “ 10/30. 3 « 10/31 “ 11/2.
Payments made by the United States to the Bates & Rogers Construction Company are as follows:
Bate of payment. Amount. Bate of payment Amount. Bate of payment. Amount. July 6th. 6th.. Aug. 12th.. 14th.. 15th.. 22nd.. $350.00 750.00 175.00 775.00 175.00 175.00 Aug. 30th. Sept. 7th.. 13th.. 19th.. 25th.. Oct. 2nd.. $175.00 175.00 175.00 175.00 175.00 175.00 Oct. 9th. 16th. 23rd. 30th. Nov. 6th. $175. Oh 175.00 175.00 175.00 75.00
VIII. The said steam shovel of the plaintiffs was appropriated by the Government as its property under the purchase privilege clause of the contract between the plaintiffs and the Bates & Rogers Construction Company and the facts pertaining to said appropriation are as follows: Major W. Morava was the constructing officer under the contract between the Bates & Rogers Construction Company and the United States, and Major Henry McConnell, Quartermaster Corps, was duly authorized to act in his place and stead by the War Department. On October 2, 1918, the Bates & Rogers Construction Company sent the following letter to the constructing quartermaster at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, which officer by the first endorsement attached to said letter forwarded the same to the War Department, which is also shown as follows :•
October 2, 1918.
Major W. Morava,
Constructing Q. M., Army Reserve Depot,
New Cumberland, Pa.
Dear Sir: You will please be advised that we anticipate being finished using Erie shovel B-74 in about fifteen days.
This shovel, which is valued at $5,000.00, and is the property of L. Klebe & Co., Philadelphia, Pa., will have earned approximately $3,825.00 at that time.
■ Kindly indicate to us whether it is the intention of the Government to exercise its purchase privilege.
Yours truly,
'Bates & Rogers Construction Comtany.
1st Ind.
Con stRU gting QuartermasteR,
New Cumberland, Pa., Oct. 9,1918.
To Chief of Construction Division, Washington, D. C.
1. Forwarded for action. It is recommended that this shovel be taken over by the Government if there is Government work to which it can be assigned.
Henry McCoNNell,
Major, Quartermaster Corps, Acting Constructing Quartermaster.
The recommendation of the constructing quartermaster contained in the foregoing first indorsement was approved on October 14, 1918, by the Chief of the Construction Division of the War Department, Washington, D. C. On October 17, 1918, the constructing quartermaster notified the Bates & Rogers Construction Company as follows:
October 17, 1918.
Memorandum to Bates & Rogers Construction Co.
Referring to your letter dated October 2, 1918, asking whether or not the Government intends to exercise its purchase privilege on Erie shovel B-74, valued at $5,000.00, on which approximately $3,825.00 rental has accrued, you are advised that, acting upon instructions from Washington,, we hereby exercise the Government’s purchase privilege and take over said Erie steam shovel B-74 as the property of the United States. ,
We are further directed to ship this shovel as soon as we-are through with it here to the officer in charge of construction, Mays Landing, N. J., to whom you will invoice the-shovel, charging the difference between the agreed valuation and the accrued rental at the date of transfer. This invoice should be certified by this office before being .forwarded and a copy should be furnished us to be sent to Washington.
Henry McConnell,
Major, Quartermaster Corps,
Acting Constructing Quartermasters
HATCG/W.
■' On October -28, 1918, the Bates & Rogers Construction Company sent the following letter to plaintiffs:
Messes. L. Klebe & Co., 1109 West Dauphin St., October 28,1918. Philadelphia, Pa.
GeNtlemeet: You will please be advised that the War Department had notified us that it intends to exercise its purchase privilege under section eight of the rental contract under which we are using your Erie shovel and to take the same over as Government property the 31st instant.
Kindly send bill at agreed valuation, less earned rentals at once.
Yours, truly,
Bates & Rogers Construction Co.
WD-MR.
On November 4, 1918, the Bates & Rogers Construction Company wrote plaintiffs as follows:
November 4, 1918.
Gentlemen: With further reference to the taking over by the War Department of your Erie shovel B~74, at the agreed valuation less rentals accrued up to the time when we are finished with it on this work, will ask that you render us invoice in septuple for this shovel at the valuation contained in our contract, less rentals earned up to. and including November 2nd, which totals $4,225.00.
Trusting that you will give this matter your earliest attention, we are,
Yours truly,
Bates & Rogers Construction Co.
HMcO-W.
On November 5, 1918, plaintiffs replied to the Bates & Rogers Construction Company as follows:
Gentlemen: We have consulted our counsel relative to the right of the Government to appropriate our shovel upon payment of an agreed valuation less earned rentals and your request for a bill for the shovel under these terms.
We are advised that our contract with you was not made subject to the terms of any contract you had with the Government, that clause of the contract having been left blank, and that if the Government wants our property it should pay its fair valuation at the time of the appropriation, due notice of which should be given to us by the Government.
Under the circumstances we shall look to yon ior the. payment of the rental and the return of..the- shovel as provided for in the contract.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) Klebe & Company.
On November G, 1918, the constructing quartermaster wrote to Klebe & Company as follows:
1. The contractors here, Bates & Rogers Construction Co., have shown me your letter of November 5th, in which you state that acting upon advice of your counsel, you declined to turn over to the Government shovel No. †4, believing that your contract does not cover the taking over' of the shovel.
2. This is to advise you that the Government has taken over .your shovel No. 74 as distinctly provided in the contract. Any claims you have to the contrary should be taken up with the Chief of Construction Division, Washington, D. C. ' So far as this office is concerned the matter is closed.
HeNp.y McConnell,
Major, Quartermaster Corps, Acting 0onsiructing Quartermaster.
HMcC-W.
On November 6, 1918, Bates & Rogers Construction Company wrote to Klebe & Company as follows:
Gentlemen: Your letter of the 5th instant, with inference to Government taking over the steam shovel, as per the terms of an agreement entered into with you for the same, has been received by us and referred to the constructing quartermaster at this point.
He advises us that he has communicated with you to-day and also advises that the contract as made is regular in every respect and that the Government has taken over the shovel as its property.
If you will furnish ns with an invoice for amount less rentals paid you we will transmit the same to them for early remittance.
Yours truly,
Bates & Rogeks Construction Company.
DBG-R.
On November 21, 1918, the Bates & Rogers Construction Company wrote to plaintiffs as follows:
GeNtlemeN : Please refer to our considerable correspondence with reference to your steam shovel taken over by the Government.
This work here will be finished by December 1st, and by that time our accounts will be closed and our organization taken away. There is a balance due you on your shovel, and if you wish us to handle this matter with the Government for you it will be necessary that you furnish us your invoice, but if you wish to handle it direct with the Government kindly advise us.
Yours very truly,
Bates & Bogers CoNStructtoN Co.
DBO-R.
On December 9, 1919, Bates & Bogers Construction Company wrote the constructing quartermaster at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, as follows:
Dear Sir: Attached please find our complete file, with reference to the Government taking over Erie steam shovel “ B ” 7á, the property of L. Klebe & Company, Philadelphia, which was on this work under the usual contract and on which your office instructed us to ship to Mays 'Landing, New Jersey.
You will note that Klebe & Company are objecting to the Government taking over this shovel, claiming that under the terms of the contract they have no right to do so.
You will also note a letter addressed to that company by Major McConnell, in which is clearly defined the position of the Government.
We have on several occasions asked Klebe & Company to furnish us with their invoice so that same could be transmitted to you for payment. TJp to the present time they have not furnished this invoice and it appears that they do not intend doing so.
This is referred to you for direct handling with Klebe & Company and we wish to advise that our company will not assume any responsibility or liability and that we have closed our records.
Yours truly,
Bates & Bogers CoNstructioN Co.
(Sgd.) D. B. Cassell.
IX. The work of constructing the Interior Storage Depot at New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, was completed early in December, 1918. The class of work on which steam shovels were used was completed subsequent to November 6, 1918. The exact date can not be ascertained. On November 6, 1918, about 95 per cent of the excavating work had been done. All such work had been done for the warehouses, but some cuts for roads and switches remained to be completed, and the proper Government officials caused the release of several shovels and took over only such equipment as would relieve the Government from payment of further rentals. This steam shovel was shipped from this work at New Cumberland on November 2, 1918, to Mays Landing, New Jersey, to be used on other Government work.
X. At the time the United States took over the. said shovel its fair value was $5,000.
XI. The United States has been ready and willing at all times to pay plaintiffs the sum of $775 pursuant to the rights which it asserts under the contract between plaintiffs and Bates & Rogers Construction Company, being “ Exhibit F ” of the plaintiffs’ petition.
Appealed.

Opinion:
Campbell, Chief Justice,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The question for decision is whether from the facts there arises the implication- of a contract, by which the Government agreed to pay $5,000, the value of the shovel, as for a taking of the property of plaintiffs for public use.
The law upn the subject is well settled. In a late case the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion by Mr. Justice McKenna have said: "It is to be remembered that to bind the Government there must be implication of a contract to pay, but the circumstances may rebut that implication." John Horstmann Co. case, 257 U., S. 138. And in the Tempel case, 248 U. S. 121, 129, the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandéis, say: "If the plaintiff can recover, it must be upon an implied contract. For, under the Tucker Act, the consent of the United States to be sued is (so far as here material) limited to claims founded upon any contract, express or implied; and a remedy for claims sounding in tort is expressly denied." In Ball Engineering. Co. v. White & Co., 250 U. S. 46, 57, it was held that the facts rebutted the implication of a contract that the Government would pay, which, it is said in that case, must be the basis of its liability. What, then are the facts ? These have been stipulated by the parties, and from this stipulation it appears that the United States entered into what is called a " cost-plus " contract with the Bates & Rogers Construction Company (hereinafter called contractor) for work in connection with a storage depot. The Government's agent is called " the contracting officer."
The contractor undertook to furnish the labor, materials, equipment, etc., necessary for the completion of certain work involving sewers, excavation, grading, and subsurface work, according to plans and specifications, and lie was to be paid for the cost of the work, as provided in Article II of the contract. Among other things, he was to be reimbursed for " rentals actual]3? paid " by him for " steam shovels " at rates not to exceed those mentioned in the schedule of rates, as well as for similar equipment the contractor " may own and furnish," at the named scheduled rental rates. Provision is made for the filing by the contractor with the contracting officer of a schedule setting forth the fair valuation of each part of the construction plant upon its arrival at the site, and this valuation was to be deemed final unless the contracting officer seasonably objected to the same. If the total rental paid to the contractor for any article should equal tire valuation thereof, no further rental was payable and title would vest in the United States, and at the completion of the work the contracting officer could, at his option, purchase for the United States any part of the plant then owned by the contractor by paying the difference between its valuation and the rentals that had been paid thereon. In May, 1918, following this contract, the contractor, Bates & Rogers Construction Company, entered into a written agreement — called a lease — with Klebe & Company, the plaintiffs, for the use of a steam shovel at $25.00 per day. This lease contemplated the use of the shovel on the Government's work. .It stated that the plaintiffs had acquainted themselves with the terms of the contract between the contractor and the United States, and contained a provision to the effect that all of the rights which the Government had under its contract as against property of the contractor should " apply to and be enforceable against " the property leased by plaintiffs, "to the end that the United States Government may have and exercise as to and against the said equipment all rights provided for in said paragraph c (of Article II) with respect to " the contractor's property, the lessor (the plaintiffs), however, "to he entitled, as owners, to receive any purchase price payments, which upon any appropriation of said equipment by the United States Government under said Article II may be coming from said Government." The lease stated the valuation of the shovel at $5,000.
The stipulation says: " The said steam shovel of the claimants was appropriated by the Government as its property under the purchase privilege clause of the contract between the claimants and the Bates & -Rogers Construction Company, and the facts pertaining to said appropriation arc as follows." Then follows certain correspondence, from which it appears that on October 2, when the work was nearing completion, the contractor notified the contracting officer of the fact, and, stating that at that time about $3,825 in rentals had been paid upon the shovel, inquired whether it was " the intention of the Government to exercise its purchase privilege." This notice was forwarded to Washington with his recommendation, and later, on October 17, the contracting officer replied to the inquiry of October 2, that " acting upon instructions from Washington, we hereby exercise the Government's purchase privilege and take over said Erie steam shovel B-74 as the property of the United States." The contractor notified the plaintiffs of this action, and on November 5 they replied to him that their contract did not provide that the Government could take the shovel at an agreed valuation, less rentals paid, and they would look to the contractor " for the payment of the rental and return of the shovel, as provided for in the contract." This letter of November 5 was brought to the contracting officer's attention, and he wrote to plaintiffs, stating: "This is to advise you that the Government has taken over your shovel No. 74, as distinctly provided in the contract." It should be observed that the facts clearly show that this officer's "instructions from Washington" were to exercise the Government's right to purchase the shovel, and that he neither had, nor attempted to exercise, any other right of appropriation by the Government. The record does not disclose that he had any authority .to appropriate the shovel under the Government's power of eminent domain. At that time the paid rentals amounted to $4,225, and the difference between them and the valuation of the shovel, stated in the lease, is $775. The shovel was shipped to another place by the contractor under instructions from the contracting officer. The stipulation shows that the Government has been ready and willing at all times to pa}' this sum of $775, " pursuant to the rights which it asserts, under the contract." The plaintiffs are not suing for this balance, but claim $5,000 as the value of the shovel.
It is unquestionably settled that where the Government takes property for public use, conceding the ownership to be in an individual, it impliedly promises to make just compensation therefor. Great Falls Mfg. Co. case, 112 U. S. 645; Bigby case, 188 U. S. 400, 407; Ball Engineering Co. v. White & Co., 250 U. S. 46, 56; North American Co. case, 253 U. S. 330, 333.
The basis for the enforcement of this liability in the Court of Claims is that the taking, under the circumstances stated, raises an implied contract to pay for the property. Great Falls Mfg. Co. case, 112 U. S. 645, 658; Tempel case, supra; Peabody case, 231 U. S. 530, 539. See also Russell case, 182 U. S. 516, 530; Harley case, 198 U. S. 229, 234; Court of Marion County, 53 C. Cls. 120, 149. As was held in United States v. North American Co., 253 U. S. 330, 335 : " The right to bring this suit against the United States in the Court of Claims is not founded upon the fifth amendment (Schillinger case, 155 U. S. 163, 168; Basso case, 239 U. S. 602), but upon the existence of an implied contract entered into by the United States."
It follows that where the circumstances in Avhich the appropriation occurs rebut the implication of a contract there can be no recovery. Ball Engineering Co. v. White & Co., 250 U. S. 46, 57, distinguishing Buffalo Pitts Co. case, 234 U. S. 228; Tempel case, supra; Natron Soda Co. case, 54 C. Cls. 169, affirmed 257 U. S. 138.
Stating some of these rules, it Avas further said in United States v. North American Co., 253 U. S. 330, 333, that in order that the Government shall be liable, it must appear that the officer who has physically taken possession of the property was duly authorized so to do, either directly by Congress or by the official upon whom Congress conferred the power.
We are required to observe the settled distinction between actions ex contractu and those ex delicto, because in the latter the Government has not subjected itself -to suit. Langford case, 101 U. S. 341, 345; Jones case, 131 U. S. 1; Hill case, 149 U. S. 593, 598; Bigby case, 188 U. S. 400, 405.
The property was taken possession of because the Government officer asserted that an express contract gave it the right to purchase by paying the difference between what it had paid as rental, $4,225. and the stated valuation, $5,000. To claim that by the very act of exercising this asserted right- to purchase for $775 the Government made itself liable, upon an implied contract, to pay $5,000 involves a contradiction of terms. It ignores any distinction between express and implied agreements and confuses that class of contracts which grow out of the dealings of parties with the distinct class of implied contracts arising from the exercise of the sovereign right of eminent domain because of the fifth amendment. And this situation is not relieved by characterizing the contract right as an option, requiring actual payment, before the property could be taken in virtue of the contract. The appropriation was itself an exercise of this right of purchase, and the Government's agents so stated. The contract contemplated that the Government might elect to appropriate the property before making the payment. It provided that the plaintiffs were to be entitled, as owners, to receive any purchase price payments, " which upon appropriation of said equipment may be coming from said Government." And it is not to be conceded that under a cost-plus contract, such as was made between the parties, the Government can not avail itself of the right of purchase stipulated for except upon paying in advance for the property involved. It, of course, becomes liable under the terms of purchase.
Under the facts it can not be asserted that the Government's claim was a mere subterfuge (and as to its interest and claim see Propeller Company case, 14 Wall. 670, 675), but in determining the question here involved as to whether the property was taken under the implied contract, essential to plaintiff's case, we are not required to pass upon the validity of the Government's claim of right to the property in question-, because, as was said in the Tempcl case, p. 130: " It is unnecessary to determine whether this claim of the Government is well founded. The mere fact that the Government then claimed and now claims title in itself, and that it denies title in the plaintiffs, prevents the court from assuming jurisdiction of the controversy." The Government's claim of a right of purchase, asserted and acted upon as it clearly was in this instance, negatives a conclusion that the property was taken under the power of eminent domain. " The law can not imply a promise by the Government to pay for a right over, or interest in, land, which right or interest the Government claimed and claims it possessed before it utilized the same. If the Government's claim is unfounded, a property right of plaintiff was violated; but the cause of action therefor, if any, is one sounding in tort, and for such the Tucker Act affords no remedy." Tempel case, supra. See Hill case, 149 U. S. 593, 598; Langford case, 101 U. S. 341.
The plaintiffs rely upon the Buffalo Pitts Co. case, 234 U. S. 228, but, plainly, the facts in that case are different from the facts in the instant case. The rule stated in Ball Engineering Co. v. White & Co., 250 U. S. 46, is applicable here. In the last-named case, Mr. Justice Day, who wrote the opinions in both cases, distinguishes the Buffalo Pitts Go. ease, and from his analysis of the latter (250 U. S. 56) it appears that the Government recognized the claim of the Buffalo Pitts Company as mortgagor to the property in question, and represented that if the property were left in its possession and use, its attorney would recommend payment therefor, and, further, that the company relied on these representations and consented to the Government retaining possession of its property in expectation of receiving compensation therefor. In Ball Engineering Co. v. White & Co., it appeared that the Government had a contract with Hubbard and Company for the construction of a lock and dam, which provided for annulment under certain conditions, and by paragraph 33 provided that in case of annulment the Government would have the right to take the property on the premises at a valuation or rental to be fixed by the officer in charge. The contract was annulled and the work was relet to White & Company. The Ball Engineering Company, whose connection with the work, or the original contract, does not appear, had done some work and assembled some property at the site. This prop-* erty was valued by the officer at $11,578 and had been excepted from the general notice to Hubbard & Company, the contractor, to remove property from the premises preparatory to work by White & Company. It was leased by the United States to White & Company, who used it in completing the work, and then returned all of it to the Government, except, of course, such material as had been used in construction. In its contract with White & Company the Government had agreed to avail itself of the provision of paragraph 33 of the contract with Hubbard & Company, if requested so to do by the new contractor, and upon their request it delivered the property in question to them, but stipulated that it would not be liable therefor or on account thereof. The Ball Engineering Company sued White & Company in the district court for the value of this property, and, upon appeal from the district court, it was held by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 241 Fed. 989, upon authority of the Buffalo Pitts Company case, that White & Company were not liable, the theory of the decision being that the United States had appropriated the property under circumstances which made it liable to pay therefor. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Government was allowed to file a brief amicus curia, contending that there was no such taking of the property as to render it liable, and that the action of the Ball' Engineering Company sounded in tort. The opinion calls attention to the T'em/pel case, supra, and follows it, with the result that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed, and White & Gompany (and not the United States) were held to be liable for the property in question. It was declared that under the circumstances stated "the implication of a contract that the United States would pay, which must be the basis of its liability under the fifth amendment, is clearly rebutted. The liability," it is added, " of the Government, if any, is in tort, for which it has not consented to be sued " (p. 57).
In the instant case the facts show that the Government officer took possession of the shovel under what was asserted to be a claim of right to take it, founded upon an express contract, and the circumstances clearly rebut the implication of a promise to pay its fixed valuation.
As already stated, taking the property under an express contract, which created a liability for $-775, is itself sufficient to rebut an implication that it was taken under an implied contract involving a liability for $5,000. See Bogert case, 2 C. Cls. 159, 165.
'Whilst, strictly speaking, the plaintiffs' petition is framed on a theory that would preclude a recovery of any sum, it makes the contracts part of it, and may, therefore, be held to authorize a judgment for $775, especially in Anew of the stipulation to this effect. This course obviates the necessity for a new petition; but it may be added, however, that the court does not recognize a right' in the parties to stipulate the questions that shall be decided upon the facts when found. They can not by stipulation confer jurisdiction of an action sounding in tort.
Judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $775.
Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Booth, Judge, concur.