Ordnance Engineering Corp. v. United States

68 Ct. Cl. 301, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 279, 1929 WL 2454
United States Court of Claims·Decided June 10, 1929·No. No. 34680·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Booth, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, sues to recover upon a number of items which may be best discussed in their order. The plaintiff in the summer of 1916 consulted with and interested the War Department in its previous experiments with the manufacture of illuminating shells. A demonstration of plaintiff’s 2.18" shell occurred in January, 1917. The War Department complimented plaintiff’s achievements in this instance, and the written report to this effect was forwarded to the Bureau of Ordnance and to the British War Office. The War Department awarded a contract to the plaintiff to manufacture some star shells for a 2.75" trench smooth-bore mortar, and thereafter the plaintiff continued its experimentations with other and additional designs. Plaintiff’s chief engineer was directly responsible [331] for its activities in star-shell designing and experimentation, and as will subsequently appear patents were applied for and granted covering the invention. Plaintiff’s success with the War Department encouraged its contact with the Navy Department. On February 5, 1917, it requested the privilege of demonstrating the utility of its star shells to the department. The Navy Department had not accomplished success in obtaining a star shell for long-range guns. The department’s difficulties were peculiar to its own style and caliber of ordnance, and of course the proper officials welcomed the plaintiff’s suggestions. After some correspondence and personal interviews the plaintiff disclosed to the Navy Department its detailed drawings of a 3" star shell, at the same time advising the department of its purpose to manufacture small star shells for unrifled cannon, which would develop the degree of velocity the department desired to obtain. The Navy could not utilize the trench mortar or the star shell developed for the War Department. The Navy was using high-velocity guns and star shells inserted therein had to be so designed as to meet this condition. Following a variety of changes and modifications, brought about by correspondence and interviews, the Navy Department in June, 1917, entered into an experimental contract with the plaintiff, contract #1099, for the manufacture of ten 3", star shells of plaintiff’s design. It is sufficient to say that shells covered by the contract proved unsatisfactory. Thereafter, upon receipt from the British Admiralty of the specifications and drawings of the British 4" star shell, the department became convinced that such a shell was available, and invited proposals from the plaintiff to manufacture 25 such shells for experimental purposes. A contract was awarded the plaintiff for so doing on February 15, 1918, by the terms of which the plaintiff was to make 20 shells of each of two designs submitted by the British Admiralty, and five of its own design, i. e., 45 in all. Under this agreement plaintiff, with modified suggestions of its own, made and subjected to test the shells called for. The test was not satisfactory. Whereupon the plaintiff proceeded to perfect its own design, and as a result of a test the department was satisfied as to [332] the plaintiff’s 3" and 4" shells. Plans and drawings were furnished the proper bureau of the department, and in June, 1918, a contract was let, whereby the plaintiff was to manufacture and deliver 20,000 each of its 3" and 4" shells. It is this contract, to which all others are preliminary, known as #39716, subsequently supplemented by contract #39716-A, which gives rise to this litigation.

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

Ordnance Engineering Corp. v. United States, 68 Ct. Cl. 301, 1929 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 279, 1929 WL 2454 (cc 1929).

68 Ct. Cl. 301 (Ordnance Engineering Corp. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tecom, Inc. v. United States
66 Fed. Cl. 736 (Federal Claims, 2005)
Hazeltine Corp. v. United States
10 Cl. Ct. 417 (Court of Claims, 1986)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States
670 F.2d 156 (Court of Claims, 1982)
Amax Fly Ash Corp. v. United States
514 F.2d 1041 (Court of Claims, 1975)
Technical Development Corp. v. United States
202 Ct. Cl. 237 (Court of Claims, 1973)
Martin v. United States
84 Ct. Cl. 41 (Court of Claims, 1936)
Ordnance Engineering Corp. v. United States
84 Ct. Cl. 1 (Court of Claims, 1936)
Barlow v. United States
82 Ct. Cl. 360 (Court of Claims, 1936)