Lipshitz & Cohen v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
Plaintiffs in error seek to recover profits, which, it is alleged, would have been realized if the United States had complied with their agreement to deliver approximately 1,530,600 pounds of obsolete material. The cause was heard by the District Judge without a jury. He found the facts and upon them held that the contract had not been broken.
An agent of the United States put out a schedule which stated that certain obsolete material, classed ,as cast iron, cast and forged steel, armor steel, brass, bronze ,and lead, was held for sale at six specified forts. It set out the weights of each…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brawley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
3Cited by20 opinions
- Pacific Architects & Engineers Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974
- United States v. F. C. HathawayCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- American Elastics, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
- Philip Krupp v. Federal Housing AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1961
- Maguire & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.