Case: BURNEY AXE, TRADING AS B. AXE & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Axe v. United States
Decision Date: 1925-04-06
Docket Number: No. C-319
Citation: 60 Ct. Cl. 493
Volume: 60
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: BURNEY AXE, TRADING AS B. AXE & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Pages: 493–495

Head Matter:
BURNEY AXE, TRADING AS B. AXE & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. C-319.
Decided April 6, 1925]
On the Proofs
Contract, implied; authority; inducement. — Where an officer of the Army, without authority from the Secretary of War, assures plaintiff that he would have contracts awarded him in the future, there is no liability on the part of the United States to pay plaintiff! the loss occasioned by cancellation of a lease entered into with a third party in consequence of such assurance.
The Reporter's statement of the case:
Mr. Raymond M. Hudson for the plaintiff.
Mr. George T. Stormont, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General William J. Donovan, for the defendant.
Motion for new trial overruled June 8, 1925.
The following are the facts as found by the court:
I. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania.
II. Plaintiff was engaged in the manufacture of ladies’ dresses and waists at his factory located at 1315 Cherry Street, Philadelphia. This factory was on premises held by plaintiff under lease expiring on March 1, 1919. The rent paid for this building was $6,000 per year, and it had been occupied by plaintiff for several years and was adequate for the work being done prior to taking on Government work, as hereinafter mentioned. In 1917 the plaintiff was manufacturing two lines of goods at 1315 Cherry Street; dresses and waists represented one line of business and skirts a separate line. During the summer of 1917 plaintiff decided to take up some Government work and manufacture trousers; at the same time he also made arrangements to manufacture bed sacks for the Government. He found that the premises 1315 Cherry Street were not sufficiently large to conduct the work for the Government and his private business. Accordingly he decided to give up the skirt business entirely and move the dress and waist business to another location, namely, 1228 Cherry Street, in January, 1918, and to turn the factory at 1315 Cherry Street over to the Government work entirely. During 1918 these premises at 1315 Cherry Street were used exclusively for making trousers, bed sacks, and shelter tents for the Government.
III. Plaintiff was performing a contract for making ■woolen trousers for the Government at the factory when lie was notified by the landlord of premises 1315 Cherry Street that he would have to renew his lease at that time or vacate the premises at the expiration of the term. At that time Capt. William Brooks, of the Clothing and Equipage Divi■sion, Quartermaster Corps, was in charge of the uniform ■branch at the Philadelphia depot. Plaintiff went to Captain Brooks and told him that he had received notice to renew 'the lease and asked his advice about the matter. This was about the middle of October, 1918. At that time plaintiff was in the performance of the contract above mentioned. •Captain Brooks stated his best judgment as a business man was for the plaintiff to go ahead and renew the lease and so told plaintiff, and also assured him there would be contracts awaiting him at all times. After this conversation with Captain Brooks plaintiff renewed the lease for another year. Thereafter Captain Brooks received information from the New York office of the Quartermaster General’s •Office that a contract for 40,000 pairs of woolen trousers had been awarded the plaintiff, and he sent for the plaintiff :and showed him the unofficial copy of the award that had been sent to him by the NeAv York office. This award was, however, subsequently canceled. The plaintiff was not given any other contracts. When plaintiff ascertained that he was to receive no further contracts from the Government he .attempted to have his lease at 1315 Cherry Street canceled, because the factory at 1228 Cherry Street was sufficiently large for his purposes and was being rented at a much less ;sum. He was unable, however, to secure a cancellation of the lease, but subsequently gave up the lease at 1228 Cherry Street, retaining the premises 1315 Cherry Street. The rental paid by plaintiff for the premises at 1315 Cherry Street was $6,500 per annum and for 1228 Cherry Street was $3,600 per annum. Plaintiff sublet 1228 Cherry Street, which was sufficient for his civilian business, and removed his civilian business to 1315 Cherry Street in an effort to reduce the losses on account of the lease. The loss to the plaintiff in the transaction was $2,900, which is the amount sued for in the petition.
IY. It does not. appear from the evidence that Captain Brooks had any authority from the Secretary of War to make a contract with plaintiff or that he was authorized to make assurances to the plaintiff that he would have contracts awarded him in the future. If plaintiff is entitled to recover, the amount of his recovery would be $2,900. ■
The court decided that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT
It does not appear from the facts in this case that any contract was made with the plaintiff to pay the amount of the rent on the premises mentioned. The statements which Captain Brooks made to the effect that other contracts would be awarded to the plaintiff can not be taken as meaning anything more than expressions of opinion of Captain Brooks. He had no authority to award contracts and certainly had no authority to assure plaintiff that future contracts would be awarded. It would be a most unreasonable supposition to indulge that an officer charged with such duties as Captain Brooks would be vested -with authority to assure a contractor that contracts would be awarded to him in the indefinite future and thus impose an obligation upon the United States. The proof does not show any such authority, nor does it show any contract such as plaintiff claims. See Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. case, 57 C. Cls. 140, 150; 261 U. S. 592, 596; see also Jacob Reed's Sons, Inc., v. United States, ante, p. 97.