L. W. Packard & Co. v. United States

66 Ct. Cl. 184, 1928 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 372, 1928 WL 2966
United States Court of Claims·Decided June 18, 1928·No. No. D-850·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

[192] MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT

It is perfectly clear from the record that the parties to the settlement contract did not intend to include within its terms the claim here sued on. To include it within the general release relied upon by the defendant involves giving effect to the settlement of an item which was never within the contemplation of the parties in making it, which was not under consideration by them when the settlement was made, and was mutually understood to be aside from the matters closed up by the settlement. If it was included by the terms of the settlement it is clearly a mutual mistake, and the settlement contract may be reformed. This, we think, is unnecessary. We need not cite authorities to sustain the fact that a receipt or release, however conclusive in terms, is subject to explanation as to the subject matter of the accord and satisfaction. The plaintiff’s claim for the [193] difference between the issue and the market price of the wool had been filed and was pending when the agreement to cancel the contract was reached, and the parties to the agreement knew this to be the fact, and did not intend to preclude the settlement of the independent claim in the settlement contract. It was not a matter of disputation between them. Defendant concedes the justness of the claim, and we think judgment therefor is allowable. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,601.68 will be awarded. It is so ordered.

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

L. W. Packard & Co. v. United States, 66 Ct. Cl. 184, 1928 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 372, 1928 WL 2966 (cc 1928).

66 Ct. Cl. 184 (L. W. Packard & Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

George Hyman Construction Co. v. United States
39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,601 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Kenbridge Construction Co. v. United States
39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,549 (Federal Claims, 1993)
Julius Goldman's Egg City v. United States
556 F.2d 1096 (Court of Claims, 1977)
J. G. Watts Construction Co. v. United States
161 Ct. Cl. 801 (Court of Claims, 1963)
NIPPON HODO COMPANY v. United States
160 F. Supp. 501 (Court of Claims, 1958)