J. A. Zachariassen & Co. v. United States

141 F. Supp. 908, 136 Ct. Cl. 63, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 110
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJune 5, 1956
DocketCong. No. 1-52
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 141 F. Supp. 908 (J. A. Zachariassen & Co. 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
J. A. Zachariassen & Co. v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 908, 136 Ct. Cl. 63, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 110 (cc 1956).

Opinion

LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the conrt:

This is a congressional reference case. On February 25, 1952, the United States Senate, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., adopted Senate Besolution 34,1 and transmitted a copy thereof, together with a copy of Senate bill 3342 to this court for action pursuant to sections 1492 3 and 25094 of Title 28, United States Code.

Senate bill 334 provided for compensation to the owners of 13 Finnish sailing vessels or to their respective successors, assigns, or heirs, for damages or compensation arising out of the detention of the 13 Finnish vessels in United States ports at Boston and New York between March 18 and November 26,1918.

Although separate petitions have been filed on behalf of the respective plaintiffs under the congressional reference, all the claims will be disposed of in this opinion since all the cases involve the same issue, the petitions are identical in substance, and all the claims involve the same or substantially the same facts and circumstances.

The chronology is that the incidents upon which these claims are asserted occurred in 1918, prior to the armistice. On or about June 20,1923, the several owners of these sailing vessels involved, through J. H. “Whitney and Company, their agent in the United States (previously handling for them the related transactions and proofs), filed with the Shipping Board claims against the United States upon the theory that the Government had chartered each of the vessels and had [66]*66failed to carry out the charter arrangement, resulting in losses, which claims were denied April 22, 1924. No claims then for illegal detention through failure to issue bunker licenses or otherwise were asserted. Congress, by Act approved June 29, 1936, 49 Stat. 2368,5 conferred jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, examine and adjudicate the claims of the owners of these vessels against the United States, and authorized the Court of Claims to hear the facts and answer certain specific questions submitted but permitted the court to receive additional evidence other than the referred documents as the court deemed material. Petitions by owners were filed July 20, 1936, and the court entered an order granting the parties authority to take additional unlimited proofs. Under authority thereof, oral testimony of witnesses covering 657 pages of testimony were received and 65 exhibits by the plaintiffs and 24 exhibits by the Government were introduced, all of which were considered by the court in its findings of fact and opinion, on June 2,1941, in the Zachariassen case, 94 C. Cls. 315 (adopted as a test case), with certiorari denied by the Supreme Court, 315 U. S. 815. Subsequently this court filed its separate per curiam, opinion on April 6,1942, 96 C. Cls. 127, in the remaining cases, Nos. 43373-43383, inclusive, adopting the controlling facts as to liability in its previous Zachariassen opinion and dismissing the claims.

The questions which the court must now determine in these cases are whether the respective plaintiffs who have presented their petitions have either legal or equitable claims against the United States, and the amount of damages, if any, which the plaintiffs are legally or equitably entitled to recover.

We have carefully considered the record and it is our opinion that none of the plaintiffs have either a legal or an equitable claim against the United States and that, therefore, no amount is legally or equitably due them from the United States.

Since the facts from which these claims arose are set forth fully in the court’s findings of fact, a brief summary will suffice here. All the vessels mentioned in Senate Bill 334 [67]*67arrived in ports in the United States during the year 1918, when the United States was at war with the German and Austro-Hungarian governments. Although Finland had declared her independence from Eussia in 1917, all the vessels were sailing under the Eussian flag when they arrived in this country. The United States, acting through its War Trade Board and the Shipping Board, detained them for varying periods of time between March 18 and November 26, 1918, by refusing to grant bunker licenses for ship’s stores and, in some instances, export cargo licenses, without which the ships could not sail. We previously held and here hold that the defendant was acting properly and within its legal rights. The action of the War Trade Board in refusing to grant these licenses was due to (a) the probability of the vessels proceeding through the war danger zone, and the possible seizure of the vessels and their cargoes and stores by the enemy, (b) the uncertainty of the political situation in Eussia and Finland, and (c) the character and responsibility of the officers and crews of the vessels. After the vessels had been delayed for varying periods of time, as shown in the tabulation hereinafter set forth, it was determined that the suspicions concerning the officers and crews were unfounded, and the vessels were finally granted the necessary licenses and permitted to sail. The investigation of the loyalty, character and responsibility of the officers and crews was a delicate matter and was postponed until all other phases of the matter of sailing were disposed of.

The legal questions involved in these claims were originally considered by this court pursuant to the above-mentioned Act of Congress approved June 29, 1936 (49 Stat. 2368), which conferred jurisdiction upon the court. The parties were allowed, as hereinbefore stated, to submit unlimited proof and the legal rights of the plaintiffs were fully and carefully considered and adjudicated.

The first claim to be considered concerned the detention of the vessel Aíbyn and was decided in J. A. Zachariassen & Co. v. United States, 94 C. Cls. 315, cert, denied, 315 U. S. 815, in which case on the findings and opinion it was held that the detention was not unlawful and that the plaintiff [68]*68in that case was not legally entitled to recover. The remaining claims were dismissed in a per cwriam opinion reported at 96 C. Cls. 127, upon the authority of the findings of fact and opinion in the Zachariassen case. For reasons stated in the original Zachariassen opinion, which is transmitted to the Senate with this opinion, it is our view that none of the plaintiffs have legal claims against the United States.

No new evidence on the merits has been presented and the question of defendant’s legal liability is res adjudicata by reason of the Zachariassen case and the related decision (96 C. Cls. 127) dealing with the other claims. However, in a Congressional reference such as this, the court will further consider the equitable side of the claims even though the legal questions have been disposed of previously. Bertha A. Burkhardt, et al. v. United States, 113 C. Cls. 115 and 658.

The commissioner of the court in the present proceedings has found that no additional material evidence on the question of liability, either legal or equitable, has been offered by the parties although they have been given full opportunity to do so. After scrutinizing the record we are in agreement with the commissioner’s conclusion.

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

Related

Draken International, Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 383 (Federal Claims, 2015)
Estate of Braude v. United States
38 Fed. Cl. 476 (Federal Claims, 1997)
Paul v. United States
20 Cl. Ct. 236 (Court of Claims, 1990)
North Counties Hydro-Electric Co. v. United States
170 Ct. Cl. 241 (Court of Claims, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 F. Supp. 908, 136 Ct. Cl. 63, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-a-zachariassen-co-v-united-states-cc-1956.