Clay v. United States

210 F.2d 686
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 15, 1954
Docket11542
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 210 F.2d 686 (Clay v. United States) 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
Clay v. United States, 210 F.2d 686 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William C. Clay, the appellant, brought suit in the District Court against the United States and certain named Government officials, 1 seeking a judgment declaring void an assignment he had made to the United States of certain Letters Patent. On defendants’ motion the court dismissed the complaint, holding that it was without jurisdiction of .the subject matter and that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A memorandum opinion filed by the court pointed out that in a suit against the United States under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2), this Act being the only basis relied upon to support jurisdiction, the District Court has jurisdiction only of a claim for damages not exceeding $10,000. The court said that the jurisdiction does not include a suit, such as this, solely for specific relief of an equitable character. 2 We agree. The Tucker Act permits a suit against the United States only for a money judgment. Any equitable relief which might be granted in such a suit is in aid of the claim for money judgment. United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 669, 33 L.Ed. 90; Lynn v. United States, 5 Cir., 110 F.2d 586.

Affirmed.

1

. It is not questioned that the action is one against the United States.

2

. The court also held that the allegations of the complaint respecting duress alleged to have been exerted in the obtaining of the assignment did not state a cause of action, and, further, that the statute of limitations had run.

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

Related

Hammer v. United States
District of Columbia, 2019
Joseph Construction Co. v. Veterans Administration
595 F. Supp. 448 (N.D. Illinois, 1984)
Tempo Trucking and Transfer Corp. v. Dickson
405 F. Supp. 506 (E.D. New York, 1975)
Boccardo v. United States
341 F. Supp. 858 (N.D. California, 1972)
John P. King v. The United States
390 F.2d 894 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Klamath & Modoc Tribes v. United States
174 Ct. Cl. 483 (Court of Claims, 1966)
C. M. Wells v. United States
280 F.2d 275 (Ninth Circuit, 1960)
Edith Blanc v. United States
244 F.2d 708 (Second Circuit, 1957)
Blanc v. United States
140 F. Supp. 481 (E.D. New York, 1956)
Di Battista v. Swing
135 F. Supp. 938 (D. Maryland, 1955)
Thibodo v. United States
134 F. Supp. 88 (S.D. California, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
210 F.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-united-states-cadc-1954.