Court Opinion

ID: 9691064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:06:41.425738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:09.816767
License: Public Domain

GREEN, Judge.
I concur on the second ground stated in the foregoing opinion, but I am inclined to the view that the contract between Brown and Munsell and the plaintiff made the liability of the former merely a contingent one depending upon whether anything became due from the government. When the Supreme Court, in- 1918, decided that Brown and Munsell could not recover from the government, it thereby in effect adjudicated, as it seems to me, that there was no liability on the part of Brown and Munsell to the plaintiff, and that the contingency upon whieh such liability might have been founded had never existed. There is no question but that the plaintiff sustained a loss, and, as stated^ in the majority opinion, the loss occurred in 1918 regardless of whether the relation of debtor and creditor existed between the plaintiff and Brown and MunselL