Anglo-American and Overseas Corporation v. United States

Second Circuit

Anglo-American and Overseas Corporation v. United States

242 F.2d 236, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2786

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 1957

Docket155, Docket 24194

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 242 F.2d 236 (Anglo-American and Overseas Corporation v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anglo-American and Overseas Corporation v. United States, 242 F.2d 236, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2786 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anglo-American and Overseas Corp., appellant, contracted to sell tomato paste to the United States, which required as a condition precedent to its acceptance of the paste that it satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration. The paste was imported; and the Food and Drug Administration, after sampling it, issued “release notices” that notified Customs officers that the tomato paste could enter the country. Anglo-American then accepted delivery. When it in turn delivered the paste to the government, federal officials once again inspected the paste, found that it did not satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration, and ordered it destroyed. Anglo-American sues now on the ground that the negligence of officials of the Food and Drug Administration in sampling the tomato paste and in issuing “release notices” induced it to accept the paste and thus suffer damages.

This claim, it is clear, “arose out of” the assertedly negligent representation of the quality of the tomato paste by federal employees. Such a claim is barred by Jones v. United States, 2 Cir., 207 F.2d 563, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 921, 74 S.Ct. 518, 98 L.Ed. 1075, which held that Section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C., excepted from liability negligent as well as intentional misrepresentation.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Anglo-American and Overseas Corp., appellant, contracted to sell tomato paste to the United States, which required as a condition precedent to its acceptance of the paste that it satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration. The paste was imported; and the Food and Drug Administration, after sampling it, issued “release notices” that notified Customs officers that the tomato paste could enter the country. Anglo-American then accepted delivery. When it in turn delivered the paste to the government, federal officials once again inspected the paste, found that it did not satisfy the standards of the Food and Drug Administration, and ordered it destroyed. Anglo-American sues now on the ground that the negligence of officials of the Food and Drug Administration in sampling the tomato paste and in issuing “release notices” induced it to accept the paste and thus suffer damages.

This claim, it is clear, “arose out of” the assertedly negligent representation of the quality of the tomato paste by federal employees. Such a claim is barred by Jones v. United States, 2 Cir., 207 F.2d 563, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 921, 74 S.Ct. 518, 98 L.Ed. 1075, which held that Section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C., excepted from liability negligent as well as intentional misrepresentation.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F.2d 236, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anglo-american-and-overseas-corporation-v-united-states-ca2-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack