Barnes v. United States

Court of Claims

Barnes v. United States

86 F. Supp. 1022, 114 Ct. Cl. 715, 1949 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 101

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 7, 1949

DocketNo. 49143

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 F. Supp. 1022 (Barnes 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

Barnes v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 1022, 114 Ct. Cl. 715, 1949 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 101 (cc 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion per curiam:

The plaintiff in this case sues for losses incurred on a subcontract entered into with David A. Richardson and Zia P. Richardson to perform a part of the work called for in contract No. I2r-13814 which the said Richard-sons had entered into with the defendant. Defendant demurs because plaintiff’s petition fails to allege that this subcontract had any connection with the prosecution of the war effort.

For the reasons stated in David A. Richardson, et al. v. United States, No. 49144, ante p. 695, the absence of this allegation makes plaintiff’s petition defective, since relief under the Lucas Act is available only to those persons who entered into contracts, within the dates specified, for work in connection with the prosecution of the war effort. [41 TJ. S. Code 106, Supp. II]

For this reason the defendant’s demurrer is sustained and plaintiff’s petition will be dismissed. It is so ordered.

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

Opinion per curiam:

The plaintiff in this case sues for losses incurred on a subcontract entered into with David A. Richardson and Zia P. Richardson to perform a part of the work called for in contract No. I2r-13814 which the said Richard-sons had entered into with the defendant. Defendant demurs because plaintiff’s petition fails to allege that this subcontract had any connection with the prosecution of the war effort.

For the reasons stated in David A. Richardson, et al. v. United States, No. 49144, ante p. 695, the absence of this allegation makes plaintiff’s petition defective, since relief under the Lucas Act is available only to those persons who entered into contracts, within the dates specified, for work in connection with the prosecution of the war effort. [41 TJ. S. Code 106, Supp. II]

For this reason the defendant’s demurrer is sustained and plaintiff’s petition will be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F. Supp. 1022, 114 Ct. Cl. 715, 1949 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-united-states-cc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack