Martin v. United States

Court of Claims

Martin v. United States

67 Ct. Cl. 247, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 389, 1929 WL 2505

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 11, 1929

DocketNo. B-421

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Ct. Cl. 247 (Martin 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

Martin v. United States, 67 Ct. Cl. 247, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 389, 1929 WL 2505 (cc 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

[251]*251MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

Upon the delivery of the plane in this case and the acceptance of same by the Government, plaintiff was paid the balance due on the contract, $16,633.58, and executed a re[252]*252ceipt signed by both plaintiff and its subcontractor, Garford Manufacturing Company, which contained the stipulation that plaintiff “ accepts the above sum in full consideration of all sums due under the above contracts (No. 1261 and No. 40) and acknowledges that it is in full of all necessary or incidental expenses entering into the construction or test of the above articles prior to delivery and acceptance by the Government.” It is alleged in the petition that “ This receipt was not intended by the plaintiff to be in full, and was obtained by the lies and false and fraudulent representations of Government officers.” (Our italics.)

The commissioner has found that “ The receipt was voluntarily signed by plaintiff, and there is no satisfactory evidence that any misrepresentations were made to plaintiff to secure his signature thereto.” This finding is supported by the evidence.

The petition will be dismissed, and it is so adjudged and ordered.

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

[251]*251MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

Upon the delivery of the plane in this case and the acceptance of same by the Government, plaintiff was paid the balance due on the contract, $16,633.58, and executed a re[252]*252ceipt signed by both plaintiff and its subcontractor, Garford Manufacturing Company, which contained the stipulation that plaintiff “ accepts the above sum in full consideration of all sums due under the above contracts (No. 1261 and No. 40) and acknowledges that it is in full of all necessary or incidental expenses entering into the construction or test of the above articles prior to delivery and acceptance by the Government.” It is alleged in the petition that “ This receipt was not intended by the plaintiff to be in full, and was obtained by the lies and false and fraudulent representations of Government officers.” (Our italics.)

The commissioner has found that “ The receipt was voluntarily signed by plaintiff, and there is no satisfactory evidence that any misrepresentations were made to plaintiff to secure his signature thereto.” This finding is supported by the evidence.

The petition will be dismissed, and it is so adjudged and ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ct. Cl. 247, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 389, 1929 WL 2505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-united-states-cc-1929.