Beard v. United States

Court of Claims

Beard v. United States

80 F. Supp. 1023, 110 Ct. Cl. 1

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 5, 1948

DocketNo. 45552

StatusPublished

This text of 80 F. Supp. 1023 (Beard 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

Beard v. United States, 80 F. Supp. 1023, 110 Ct. Cl. 1 (cc 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

WHITAKER, Judge.

Both .plaintiff and defendant have filed motions for a new trial. Plaintiff’s motion will be overruled for the reason set forth in our original opinion, Beard v. United States, 67 F.Supp. 963.

Defendant’s motion complains of the dismissal of its counterclaim. It was dismissed for the want of proof. This was erroneous. The case was referred to the commissioner under Rules of the Court of Claims, rule 39(b), 28 U.S.C.A. This rule provides for limiting the hearing before the commissioner “to the issue of whether or not the United States is liable for any portion of the moneys sought to be recovered therein.” Under it, therefore, the issue of the defendant’s right to recover on its counterclaim was not before the commissioner.

Defendant’s motion, for a new trial will be allowed and our order dismissing defendant’s counterclaim will be set aside and the case will be referred to the commissioner for the taking of proof on defendant’s counterclaim. It is so ordered.

MADDEN, JONES, LITTLETON, Judges, and WHALEY, Chief Justice, concur.

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

WHITAKER, Judge.

Both .plaintiff and defendant have filed motions for a new trial. Plaintiff’s motion will be overruled for the reason set forth in our original opinion, Beard v. United States, 67 F.Supp. 963.

Defendant’s motion complains of the dismissal of its counterclaim. It was dismissed for the want of proof. This was erroneous. The case was referred to the commissioner under Rules of the Court of Claims, rule 39(b), 28 U.S.C.A. This rule provides for limiting the hearing before the commissioner “to the issue of whether or not the United States is liable for any portion of the moneys sought to be recovered therein.” Under it, therefore, the issue of the defendant’s right to recover on its counterclaim was not before the commissioner.

Defendant’s motion, for a new trial will be allowed and our order dismissing defendant’s counterclaim will be set aside and the case will be referred to the commissioner for the taking of proof on defendant’s counterclaim. It is so ordered.

MADDEN, JONES, LITTLETON, Judges, and WHALEY, Chief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. Supp. 1023, 110 Ct. Cl. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-united-states-cc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack