United States v. A. Bentley & Sons Co.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the CourtSater, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff’s attitude is that as between it and the defendant a fiduciary relation existed — that defendant’s posture was that of a trustee and that of. the government the beneficiary of a trust. It is true, the courts have regarded government officers and agents, when dealing for or with the government to which their services are due, as occupying a position similar to that of a guardian transacting business for or with his ward. Note, for instance, Garman v. U. S., 34 Ct. Cl. 237, 242; U. S. v. Carter, 217 U. S. 286, 306, et seq., 30 Sup. Ct. 515, 54 L.…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Hume v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Hollerbach v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Cooke v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- United States v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- United States v. Georgia-Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
- Cullen Fuel Co. v. W. E. Hedger, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Rowe v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
- Hall v. Union Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- O'Hare v. Peacock Dairies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.