Lipscomb v. United States

Court of Claims

Lipscomb v. United States

87 Ct. Cl. 278, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 195, 1938 WL 3987

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 2, 1938

DocketNo. 17529

StatusPublished

This text of 87 Ct. Cl. 278 (Lipscomb 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

Lipscomb v. United States, 87 Ct. Cl. 278, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 195, 1938 WL 3987 (cc 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Green, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The parties have stipulated that the situation of this case involves facts and principles the same as in the case of the Farmers Cotton Oil Company to the use of Choctaw Cotton Oil Company v. The United States, 84 C. Cls. 468. We think it unnecessary to repeat or add anything to the opinion of the court in the case above cited as reasons for our final conclusion.

If the plaintiff’s action had been begun in time this court would have rendered a judgment in his favor, but the remedy has been lost by reason of failure to file the petition within the period of limitations. All that the court can now do is to require the findings to be certified to Congress and it is accordingly ordered that this be done.

Whalet, Judge; Williams, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.

(Note. — This ease, Congressional No. 17529, was erroneously included in Volume 86, page 756.)

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