Erceg v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Erceg v. United States

179 F.2d 510, 12 Alaska 569, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3705

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1950

Docket12314

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 179 F.2d 510 (Erceg v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erceg v. United States, 179 F.2d 510, 12 Alaska 569, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3705 (9th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On April 20, 1949, appellant filed suit on a written contract under the terms of which he had rented to the War Department drilling equipment at a specified daily rental of $30. His complaint alleged that the government used the equipment pursuant to the contract from July 17, 1942, to December 1st following and now refuses to pay the rental accrued during that period, namely the sum of $4,020. Judgment was prayed for in that sum. The government interposed a demurrer on the ground that the action was barred by the six-year limitation prescribed by §§ 55-2-1 and 55-2-4 of the Alaska Compiled Laws, Annotated, 1949, relating to actions on sealed instruments. 2 The demurrer was sustained and the complaint dismissed.

Appellant relies on the provisions of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-125, permitting the initiation of a suit within 90 days after rejection of a claim by the contracting agency. It is obvious, however, that no termination claim under this Act is pleaded. See 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 103(h) and 103(d). Appellant’s pleading discloses that the contract was fully performed, and that the cause of action accrued as of December 1, 1942. The cause appears to be an ordinary suit under the Tucker Act.

Affirmed.

2

. Section 2401(a), Title 28 U.S.C.A., likewise provides a six-year limitation in respect of civil actions against the United States. This limitation governs claims-under the Tucker Act.

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

PER CURIAM.

On April 20, 1949, appellant filed suit on a written contract under the terms of which he had rented to the War Department drilling equipment at a specified daily rental of $30. His complaint alleged that the government used the equipment pursuant to the contract from July 17, 1942, to December 1st following and now refuses to pay the rental accrued during that period, namely the sum of $4,020. Judgment was prayed for in that sum. The government interposed a demurrer on the ground that the action was barred by the six-year limitation prescribed by §§ 55-2-1 and 55-2-4 of the Alaska Compiled Laws, Annotated, 1949, relating to actions on sealed instruments. 2 The demurrer was sustained and the complaint dismissed.

Appellant relies on the provisions of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-125, permitting the initiation of a suit within 90 days after rejection of a claim by the contracting agency. It is obvious, however, that no termination claim under this Act is pleaded. See 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 103(h) and 103(d). Appellant’s pleading discloses that the contract was fully performed, and that the cause of action accrued as of December 1, 1942. The cause appears to be an ordinary suit under the Tucker Act.

Affirmed.

2

. Section 2401(a), Title 28 U.S.C.A., likewise provides a six-year limitation in respect of civil actions against the United States. This limitation governs claims-under the Tucker Act.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 F.2d 510, 12 Alaska 569, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erceg-v-united-states-ca9-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack