Legal Opinion
Henry A. Carey, Jr., Edwin D. Hicks, J. Pierre Kolisch and Joseph Schulein v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided April 6, 1960No. 112-58PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MADDEN, Judge.
The plaintiffs sue for royalties which, they claim, are owing to them pursuant to a contract. The Government says that it has no contract with the plaintiffs; that the contract on which the plaintiffs base their claim is a contract with the Attorney General of the United States, acting in his capacity as Alien Property Custodian, and that in that capacity he is a legal entity separate and different from the United States. The Government also asserts other defenses.
A Dr. William Kroll, a citizen and resident of Luxembourg, was an inventor. In 1934 he made a contract with a German…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cummings v. Deutsche Bank Und DiscontogesellschaftSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Banco Mexicano De Commercio E Industria v. Deutsche BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Bellingham Securities Syndicate, Inc. v. Bellingham Coal Mines, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
- Pflueger v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Cummings v. Societe Suisse Pour Valeurs De MetauxCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Carey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964
- Henry A. Carey, Jr., Edwin D. Hicks, J. Pierre Kolisch and Joseph Schulein v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964