Legal Opinion

Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided October 8, 1928No. F-375PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGreen, Judge

The facts in this case are not in controversy. The defendant admits that the plaintiff is entitled to recover judgment as asked in the petition unless an offset claimed by it on account of what it alleges to be an improper payment to the plaintiff constitutes a just counterclaim.

It appears that in 1911 the plaintiff agreed to deliver and install for defendant two dry-dock pumping plants within a certain period. Plaintiff manufactured the pumps on time and was ready to install them in accordance with the contract when it was directed by the Government to suspend performance because the pump…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. District of Columbia v. GallaherSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. H. E. Crook Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. E. W. Bliss Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1926
  4. Douglas Traction & Light Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1925
  5. Metal Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1926

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Blinderman Construction Co., Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1982
  2. Kehm Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1950
  3. Rogers v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1943
  4. Schmoll v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1940
  5. Steel Products Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931

3 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