Klebe v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice
The question for decision is whether from the facts there arises the implication- of a contract, by which the Government agreed to pay $5,000, the value of the shovel, as for a taking of the property of plaintiffs for public use.
The law upn the subject is well settled. In a late case the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion by Mr. Justice McKenna have said: “It is to be remembered that to bind the Government there must be implication of a contract to pay, but the circumstances may rebut that implication.” John Horstmann Co. case, 257 U., S. 138. And in the Tempel case, 248 U. S.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Schillinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Langford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Tempel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marathon Oil Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
- Janowsky v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Allenfield Associates v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
- Remington Rand Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
- Algonac Manufacturing Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.