Knickerbocker Fuel Co. v. Mellon

Second Circuit

Knickerbocker Fuel Co. v. Mellon

22 F.2d 500, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3360

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1927

DocketNo. 54

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 F.2d 500 (Knickerbocker Fuel Co. v. Mellon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knickerbocker Fuel Co. v. Mellon, 22 F.2d 500, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3360 (2d Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question seems to ns answered by Dupont De Nemours v. Davis, 264 U. S. 456, 44 S. Ct. 364, 68 L. Ed. 788, and Davis v. Cohen & Co., 268 U. S. 688, 45 S. Ct. 633, 69 L. Ed. 1129. The first case hold that a claim by the Director General for demurrage was a claim in the right of the United States, and was barred by no statute of limitations. It cannot be true at once that a claim for demurrage is in the right of the United States,,and a claim for the repayment of such demurrage is not against the United States. The second ease, Davis v. Cohen, held that section 206(a) of the Transportation Act (49 USCA § 74[a]; Comp. St. § 10071¼cc[a]) constituted the only consent given by the United States to suits against itself arising from federal control after February 28, 1920. If so, the section is not, properly speaking, a statute of limitations at all, and mutual mistake does not toll its operation. Such statutes are strictly confined to their language, Finn v. U. S., 123 U. S. 227, 232, 233, 8 S. Ct. 82, 31 L. Ed. 128; Schillinger v. U. S., 155 U. S. 163, 166, 15 S. Ct. 85, 39 L. Ed. 108; U. S. ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, 56 App. D. C. 46, 8 F.(2d) 907. Congress meant final liquidation of the accounts to take place “as soon as practicable” (section 202 [49 USCA § 72; Comp. St. § 10071¼b]), and to load the scales against all, however blameless, who failed to get beneath the wire.

The motion to dismiss should have been granted; it is unnecessary to discuss the merits.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question seems to ns answered by Dupont De Nemours v. Davis, 264 U. S. 456, 44 S. Ct. 364, 68 L. Ed. 788, and Davis v. Cohen & Co., 268 U. S. 688, 45 S. Ct. 633, 69 L. Ed. 1129. The first case hold that a claim by the Director General for demurrage was a claim in the right of the United States, and was barred by no statute of limitations. It cannot be true at once that a claim for demurrage is in the right of the United States,,and a claim for the repayment of such demurrage is not against the United States. The second ease, Davis v. Cohen, held that section 206(a) of the Transportation Act (49 USCA § 74[a]; Comp. St. § 10071¼cc[a]) constituted the only consent given by the United States to suits against itself arising from federal control after February 28, 1920. If so, the section is not, properly speaking, a statute of limitations at all, and mutual mistake does not toll its operation. Such statutes are strictly confined to their language, Finn v. U. S., 123 U. S. 227, 232, 233, 8 S. Ct. 82, 31 L. Ed. 128; Schillinger v. U. S., 155 U. S. 163, 166, 15 S. Ct. 85, 39 L. Ed. 108; U. S. ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, 56 App. D. C. 46, 8 F.(2d) 907. Congress meant final liquidation of the accounts to take place “as soon as practicable” (section 202 [49 USCA § 72; Comp. St. § 10071¼b]), and to load the scales against all, however blameless, who failed to get beneath the wire.

The motion to dismiss should have been granted; it is unnecessary to discuss the merits.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F.2d 500, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knickerbocker-fuel-co-v-mellon-ca2-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack