Case: THE PIERCE-ARROW MOTOR CAR COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Pierce-Arrow Motor Oar Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1923-10-29
Docket Number: No. C-123
Citation: 58 Ct. Cl. 582
Volume: 58
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE PIERCE-ARROW MOTOR CAR COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
THE PIERCE-ARROW MOTOR CAR COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. C-123.
Decided October 29, 1923.]
On the Proofs.
Contract; addition of sales tax to contract price. — See Car ford Motor Truck Co. v. United States, 57 O. Ols., 404; Id., ante, p. 53.
The Reporter’s statement of the case:
Mr. W. Ainsworth Parher for the plaintiff.
Mr. Howard J. Bloomer, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the defendant.
The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. The plaintiff is, and during the times hereinafter mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and factory in the city of Buffalo in said State.
II. On or about December 28, 1920, the plaintiff and the United States, by their authorized representatives, entered into a written contract, designated as Cancellation Agreement No. 205-A, by which a full and final settlement was made of all claims arising out of the cancellation by the United States of contracts motors 489 and 862, between the plaintiff and the United States, and the United States agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $3,236.05. A copy of said contract No. 205-A is annexed to the plaintiff’s petition as Exhibit I and is by reference made a part of these findings of fact.
III. The plaintiff has made demand upon the United States for the payment of said sum of $3,236.05 due the plaintiff under said contract, but payment thereof has been disallowed by the Auditor for the War Department because of a claim asserted by the United States against the plaintiff for $241,143.32 for alleged overpayments to plaintiff by Dieut. Col. Daniel W. Arnold on certain other contracts between the plaintiff and the United States.
Said claim of the United States against the plaintiff was held invalid and disallowed by this court in its judgment of June 12,1922, in plaintiff’s case No. 34732, in which case said ■claim was presented by the United States as a counterclaim against the plaintiff’s claims therein, and to which case reference is hereby made.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT.
The question- involved in this case has been twice decided against the defendant by this court, in the cases of Garford Motor Truck Co. v. United States, 57 C. Cls. 404, and Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co. v. United States, No. 34732, decided June 12,1922. In the case at bar the defendant has offered no evidence of any kind or presented any proof of a counterclaim. It has contented itself in its brief with simply referring to its brief in the last-mentioned case, attaching a copy thereof as a part of its brief in this case.