Legal Opinion

Rice Barton Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided February 6, 1950No. 46814PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJoNes, Chief Judge

In this case plaintiff seeks to recover from the United States under section 17 (a) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U. S. C. § 117, fair compensation for certain engine parts which the plaintiff, because of certain alleged assurances and guaranties of the United States Maritime Commission, furnished to Springfield Machine & Foundry Company (hereinafter referred to as “Springfield”), and which Springfield delivered to Harrisburg Machinery Cor*588poration, its parent company (hereinafter referred to as “Harrisburg”), for incorporation in Liberty engines under contracts of Harrisburg with…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ordnance Research, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979
  2. California-Pacific Utilities Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1971
  3. William R. Sherwin, D/B/A Sherwin Electric Service v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1971
  4. Victoria Mines, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
  5. Electronic Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API