Axe v. United States

Court of Claims

Axe v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 493, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 519, 1925 WL 2644

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 6, 1925

DocketNo. C-319

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 Ct. Cl. 493 (Axe v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Axe v. United States, 60 Ct. Cl. 493, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 519, 1925 WL 2644 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[495]*495MEMORANDUM 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.

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

[495]*495MEMORANDUM 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ct. Cl. 493, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 519, 1925 WL 2644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/axe-v-united-states-cc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack