Volk v. United States

Court of Claims

Volk v. United States

120 Ct. Cl. 57, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 59, 1951 WL 5366

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 5, 1951

DocketNo. 48518

StatusPublished

This text of 120 Ct. Cl. 57 (Volk 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

Volk v. United States, 120 Ct. Cl. 57, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 59, 1951 WL 5366 (cc 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitaker, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is evident-from the testimony that the machine gun tripods requisitioned by. the defendant were altogether outmoded at the time of their requisition.. They had been so completely supplanted by improved models that they were [65]*65no longer of any use. Tbeir sole remaining value was the value of the material in them. We do not reiterate the reasons why they were no longer of any use for the purpose for which they were designed; these reasons are set forth in findings 11 to 13, both inclusive.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover their scrap value, which w’as-$212.00. This amount was tendered him oh September 27, 1943, which plaintiff refused. The material was requisitioned on November 16, 1942. For this delay in payment plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation, computed at four per cent per annum, which amounts to $7.28.

There was no taking of the tripods which plaintiff had in storage in Schenectady, New York. The only act of the defendant which possibly could be construed as a taking was-the issuance by the War Production Board of Limitation .Order L-230, which prohibited the sale, transfer or delivery of military arms. In Oro Fino Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. United States, 118 C. Cls. 18, we held that such an order did not constitute a taking. See also St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 110 C. Cls. 271, certiorari denied, 335 U. S. 815; and Foreign Trade Management Co. v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 587.

Judgment is rendered in plaintiff’s favor for $219.28.

Howell, Judge; MaddeN, Judge; LittletoN, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur.

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

Whitaker, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is evident-from the testimony that the machine gun tripods requisitioned by. the defendant were altogether outmoded at the time of their requisition.. They had been so completely supplanted by improved models that they were [65]*65no longer of any use. Tbeir sole remaining value was the value of the material in them. We do not reiterate the reasons why they were no longer of any use for the purpose for which they were designed; these reasons are set forth in findings 11 to 13, both inclusive.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover their scrap value, which w’as-$212.00. This amount was tendered him oh September 27, 1943, which plaintiff refused. The material was requisitioned on November 16, 1942. For this delay in payment plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation, computed at four per cent per annum, which amounts to $7.28.

There was no taking of the tripods which plaintiff had in storage in Schenectady, New York. The only act of the defendant which possibly could be construed as a taking was-the issuance by the War Production Board of Limitation .Order L-230, which prohibited the sale, transfer or delivery of military arms. In Oro Fino Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. United States, 118 C. Cls. 18, we held that such an order did not constitute a taking. See also St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 110 C. Cls. 271, certiorari denied, 335 U. S. 815; and Foreign Trade Management Co. v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 587.

Judgment is rendered in plaintiff’s favor for $219.28.

Howell, Judge; MaddeN, Judge; LittletoN, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 Ct. Cl. 57, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 59, 1951 WL 5366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volk-v-united-states-cc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack