Case: FRANCISCA DE GUIA AND BEATRIZ B. PALMARES v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: De Guia v. United States
Decision Date: 1952-02-05
Docket Number: No. 50342
Citation: 122 Ct. Cl. 665
Volume: 122
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: FRANCISCA DE GUIA AND BEATRIZ B. PALMARES v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Madden, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur.
Pages: 665–667

Head Matter:
FRANCISCA DE GUIA AND BEATRIZ B. PALMARES v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 50342.
Decided February 5, 1952.
Plaintiff’s motion for new trial overruled July 15, 1952]
Mr. Ernest Schein for the plaintiff. Mr. Henry M. Kannee was on the brief.
Mr. Thomas O. Fleming, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Holmes Baldridge, for the defendant.
Mr. Matthew E. McCarthy filed a brief on behalf of Juan D. Quintos, et al., as amicus curiae, in support of plaintiff.

Opinion:
Howell, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiffs in this action seek to recover $85,340, the alleged value of three launches requisitioned from them by the Quartermaster Corps of the United States Army on or about December 22, 1941, at the Manila Harbor. The suit was filed on October 2,1951. Defendant has moved, pursuant to Eule 16 (b), to dismiss plaintiffs' petition on the ground that the claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations, 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2501, 62 Stat. 976. The arguments presented by both parties are identical with those discussed in Ferdinand E. Marcos v. United States, No. 50278, and Flaviana Tan v. United States, No. 50277, this day decided, and the conclusions stated in those cases are controlling.
Inasmuch as plaintiffs' cause of action accrued during the period of wartime suspension of the Statute of Limitations, plaintiffs were entitled to the full period of six years within which to present their claim after the lifting of the suspension on September 2, 1945. However, plaintiffs did not file their petition until October 2, 1951, which was beyond the limits of the six-year period. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the petition dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Madden, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur.