Charles H. Tompkins Company v. Wilber M. Brucker, as Secretary of the Army

D.C. Circuit

Charles H. Tompkins Company v. Wilber M. Brucker, as Secretary of the Army

262 F.2d 694, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 1958

Docket14273_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 F.2d 694 (Charles H. Tompkins Company v. Wilber M. Brucker, as Secretary of the Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles H. Tompkins Company v. Wilber M. Brucker, as Secretary of the Army, 262 F.2d 694, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the District Court appellant sought a declaratory judgment that the Secretary of the Army, appellee, acted without authority in requesting appellant to return sums previously paid to it by the United States under a construction contract, and also sought to have the Secretary enjoined from withholding funds that might become due to appellant under other construction contracts with the United States. The threatened withholding was alleged by appellant to arise from a claim by the Department of the Army that the sums, the return of which had been requested, had been mistakenly paid to appellant. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment.

Upon the authority of Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U.S. 371, 66 S.Ct. 219, 90 L.Ed. 140, we think that in effect the suit was one against the United States to which it had not consented, and that accordingly the dismissal was proper.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the District Court appellant sought a declaratory judgment that the Secretary of the Army, appellee, acted without authority in requesting appellant to return sums previously paid to it by the United States under a construction contract, and also sought to have the Secretary enjoined from withholding funds that might become due to appellant under other construction contracts with the United States. The threatened withholding was alleged by appellant to arise from a claim by the Department of the Army that the sums, the return of which had been requested, had been mistakenly paid to appellant. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment.

Upon the authority of Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U.S. 371, 66 S.Ct. 219, 90 L.Ed. 140, we think that in effect the suit was one against the United States to which it had not consented, and that accordingly the dismissal was proper.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F.2d 694, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-h-tompkins-company-v-wilber-m-brucker-as-secretary-of-the-army-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack