Court Opinion

ID: 9664036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:00:27.245759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:01.393521
License: Public Domain

WHITAKER, Judge
(dissenting).
I regret I am unable to agree with the decision of the majority of the court. Plaintiffs should have their money, but I do not think this court has jurisdiction to give it to them.
Our jurisdiction is limited to the consideration of claims presented within six years from the time they accrue. Plaintiffs original claims accrued many years prior to the beginning of the six-year period, but, in an effort to come within the six-year statute, they say the “settlement” of their claims by the Comptroller General amounted to an account stated, and that on this they are entitled to sue within six years from the date of the statement of the account.
A suit can be brought on an account stated within six years from the' statement thereof because from the statement and the agreement thereto by both parties there arises an implied promise to pay the amount agreed upon. Plaintiffs’ suits, therefore, are not on their original claims, but upon the implied promise arising out of the agreement on the amounts due.
But here there was no implied promise; instead, there was an express promise. That promise was to pay the amount agreed upon, subject to an appropriation thereof by another agency of the defendant, to wit, the Congress of the United States. When the matter was presented to the Congress, that agency refused to make the appropriation.
The Comptroller General alone could not bind the defendant; it took the concurrence of Congress, and Congress did not concur. Therefore there has been no promise to pay within six years prior to the time these suits were brought and, hence, I think this court is without jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ claims.
Their only recourse, it seems to me, is an appeal to Congress.