Case: OSCAR V. HIGHTOWER v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Hightower v. United States
Decision Date: 1935-03-04
Docket Number: No. 41897
Citation: 80 Ct. Cl. 712
Volume: 80
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: OSCAR V. HIGHTOWER v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Williams, Judge; LittletoN, Judge; GREEN, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Pages: 712–716

Head Matter:
OSCAR V. HIGHTOWER v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 41897.
Decided March 4, 1935]
Mr. Merle N. A. Walker for the plaintiff. Mr. Arthur J. lies was on the briefs.
Mr. Dan McGrath, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General George G. Sweeney, for the defendant. Mr. Heber II. Rice was on the brief.

Opinion:
Whaley, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff rented certain of his premises to the Government for a postal substation in Indianapolis. The needs of the community it served outgrew the station and larger quarters were necessary before the ten-year term expired. After four years' occupancy the Postmaster General accordingly secured new quarters and canceled plaintiff's lease.
The contract placed with the Postmaster General the right to decide when the needs of the postal service required the cancellation of the lease. Without clear proof of an arbitrary or capricious exercise of this authority given him by the terms of the lease, it is to be assumed that his sound discretion and prudent judgment were exercised. There is no proof of any bad faith, arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the high officer of the Government in terminating the lease.The evidence shows prudent foresight for the rapidly expanding business of the substation.
Cancellation under such circumstances was authorized by the contract and did not constitute a breach thereof.
There is nothing to show that alteration of the building by installing a skylight for the purpose of providing adequate light and ventilation was an unreasonable requirement. Plaintiff furnished the skylight and the record shows no promise by the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff therefor. The furnishing of additional equipment was plaintiff's duty under the contract, and this was to be without increase of rental.
The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.
Williams, Judge; LittletoN, Judge; GREEN, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.