Document: 339 U.S. 157 70 S.Ct. 545 94 L.Ed. 731 STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO.v.UNITED STATES. No. 18. Argued Oct. 13, 1949. Decided March 27, 1950. Mr. Albert R. Connelly, New York City, for petitioner. Newell A. Clapp, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On December 5, 1947, petitioner filed suit in Court Claims to recover just compensation certain its properties Philippine Islands which United States had allegedly requisitioned military purposes. 24, 1948, an amended petition, including first time claims here involved, Seventh and Fifteenth. A second petition was June 1, 1948. In claim alleged that on or about 18, 1941, took petroleum products other personal real property located Islands. The Fifteenth contained allegation, inter alia, during period from December, 1941 January, 1942, respondent disbursed at another place Islands.1 interim between filing petitions, April 12, a motion dismiss ground it appeared face sued upon each accrued more than six years prior were therefore barred by § 156 Judicial Code,2 without jurisdiction hear said claims. court allowed this stand directed against petition. After hearing argument, sustained dismiss, did 80 F.Supp. 657, 658, 112 Ct.Cl. 137. We granted certiorari, 336 935, 69 745, assumption record presented question whether deprivation access information bearing existence petitioner's Japanese occupation could affect operation six-year statute. But since does not properly present question, we cannot answer it. 2 case reaches us pleadings allege only fact taking before do intimate any facts have effect relieving limitation statute, nor what should be effect. 3 It might assumed favor is judicially known, were, all practical purposes, complete control May 1942 continued until sometime subsequent October 1944, when Army returned. deprived period. so inform, certainly know lack information. Then there reoccupation 1945 With respect Islands, nothing concerning times set forth 4 True, discussion seems been large as such thereof right file after they accrued. majority recites: 5 'Plaintiff alleges because loss destruction records proper ended opportunity reconstruct statistically properties, stocks, equipment, etc., owned requisitioning destruction.' 139. 6 There are no allegations What bring squarely within denies power entertain action brought accrues. 7 Thus decided but well, clear inkling appears record. Because considered these additional allegations, urged also consider them. determining sufficiency cause stated. all, making dispensed with. They still function perform. This points up function. will review questions clearly raised 8 Since apparent both counsel pleadings, court's judgment take cognizance facts, vacated remanded. may permit further if discretion seem just. If permission plead denied, fails granted, shall dismissed. 9 ordered. 10 Judgment 11 DOUGLAS part consideration decision case. portion hereafter referred claim. 'Every cognizable Claims, forever unless setting statement * *' 36 Stat. 1139, 28 U.S.C. 262, now 62 976, 2501, U.S.C.A. 2501.

Category: 8