Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided September 2, 1950No. Civ. A. No. 1574PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DARR, Chief Judge.
The defendant has interposed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The factual basis of the decision is upon the statements in the complaint and the admissions made by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant under Section 13 of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, Public Law 395, 58 Stat. 649, 41 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. (herein called the Act), the sum of $136,878.52, claimed as the fair dollar settlement for the cancellation of a war contract between plaintiff and Metals Reserve Company, an authorized subsidiary of the defendant. The items composing the claim…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hayes v. Port of SeattleSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Gillons v. Shell Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Evans v. SteeleTennessee Supreme Court · 1911
- Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1949
- Lucking v. SchramCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
3Cited by2 opinions
- Glade Mountain Corp. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1952
- Haberle v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1951