INDEX DIGEST

ACCESS ROADS.

See Contracts VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI.
ACT, EXPIRATION OF.

See Eminent Domain VI.

AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT

I. In a suit to recover amounts alleged to be due to
plaintiff for 1939 by reason of plaintiff's compliance
with the programs of the Department of Agri-
culture relating to soil-rebuilding and soil-conserva-
tion practices, in connection with the production
of cotton, under the provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 31), it is held
that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. De-
fendant is given judgment on its counterclaim.
Kincaid, 257.

II. Under the soil conservation program of the 1938
Agricultural Adjustment Act farmers who com-
plied with the program were entitled to two
kinds of payments. One was for holding soil-
depleting crops to an amount not in excess
of the acreage severally allotted to them and for
preserving and rebuilding the soil on the excess
acres through soil-conserving and soil-building
crops and practices. The other type was that of
parity payments, which, when funds were available,
were made to those farmers who were in compliance.
These programs were handled by and through na-
tional and regional officers and State, county and
community committees. Id.

III. The usual distinction between a tenant farmer and
a share cropper is that ordinarily a tenant furnishes
his own farm equipment and essential livestock,
and usually pays the landlord one-fourth of the
production and keeps three-fourths. In the case
of the share cropper the landlord usually furnishes
the farm tools, equipment, and essential livestock
and the production is divided equally. Id.
Landlord and Tenant

319.

119 C. Cls.

AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT-Continued
IV. Under the 1938 Act the two types of payments there-
under were to be divided among landlords, tenants,
and share croppers on the basis of their respective
shares of the cotton produced, and under the
applicable Regulations the landlord was required
to keep records in detail as to the respective acreages
and productions and to make accurate reports
thereof to the county committee, such reports to
be signed by landlords, tenants, and share croppers.
The Regulations, approved by the Secretary of
Agriculture under the Act, provided that all or
any part of the payments might be withheld if
the land was overplanted in a soil-depleting crop
or if the applicant adopted any practice which the
Secretary determined would tend to defeat any
of the provisions of the program. Any side agree-
ment, oral or written, by which the landlord was
to receive more than his share of the payments or
was to be paid directly or indirectly any portion
of the payment made to the tenant or share cropper
was, under the Regulations, to be deemed an act
tending to defeat the program. Id.
Agriculture

3.

V. Where, on the basis of information that plaintiff
had exacted from some of his share croppers addi-
tional rental payments in violation of the Regula-
tions, the State and County Committees determined
that plaintiff had violated the provisions of the
Regulations and recommended that he be denied
payment for the year 1939; and where, after a
rehearing, it was recommended that, notwithstand-
ing the violation of the Regulations, plaintiff be
allowed to settle with his tenants and thus adjust
his right to receive the two types of payments;
and where, in pursuance of the settlement, which
was approved by the State Committee, the plaintiff
refunded to the tenants the cash payments which
had been improperly exacted from them, it is held
that the agreement, followed by a refund of the
payments to the tenants, did not constitute a
clearance of any default in the original obligation
and plaintiff is not entitled to be paid the amounts
which would otherwise have been due to him upon
compliance with the program. Id.
Agriculture

3.

119 C. Cls.

AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT-Continued

Te plaintiff clearly and deliberately violated the
regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, and,
therefore, in line with the specific terms of the
Regulations, he is not entitled to payment unless
the agreed settlement by the terms of which he
refunded to the tenants from whom he exacted
payments constituted a new contract which cleared
him of a violation which would justify forfeiture of
payments. Id.

VII. The payment of a just debt does not constitute a
consideration for the binding effect of a new con-
tract. Id.

Contracts 67, 75 (1).

VIII. Where Section 16 of the Regulations issued by the
Secretary of Agriculture, under the 1938 Act,
authorized the withholding of the payments if the
applicant adopted any practice which the Secretary
determined tended to defeat any of the provisions
of the 1939 or previous agricultural programs; and
where the State Committee found that this was done
by the plaintiff and it was in effect admitted by the
plaintiff; it is held that no one other than the Secre-
tary had the authority to waive the violation of the
Regulations, and under the decision in Federal Crop
Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380, the agree-
ment entered into with plaintiff by an unauthorized
agent of the Government is not binding upon the
United States. Id.
3.

Agriculture

IX. Defendant is entitled to recover on its counterclaim
in one instance where the evidence is sufficient to
show that plaintiff had produced 6,520 pounds of
cotton in excess of the prescribed limitation and
the cotton had been marketed in the name of another,
making the plaintiff liable for the penalty of 7 cents
per pound. Judgment against plaintiff for $456.40.
As to other violations of the statute and regulations,
evidence is insufficient.
Agriculture

ALASKA ISLAND.

3.

See Eminent Domain XIII, XIV, XV.

AMENDED CONTRACT.

See Contracts XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX.

Id.

119 C. Cls.

APPEAL, FAILURE TO.

See Contracts XX.

ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE.

See Patents II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

See Contracts VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI..
CANCELLATION.

See Contracts I, II, III, IV, V, VI.

CAPTIVITY, PERIOD OF.

See Pay and Allowances XXII, XXIII.

CEDED LANDS.

See Indian Claims Commission, Appeal From, I-XXIV, inc.
CIVILIZATION FUND.

See Indian Claims Commission, Appeal From, VI, VII, VIII, IX.
COMBAT DUTY.

See Pay and Allowances III.

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.

See Eminent Domain XXIV, XXV, XXVI.

CONTRACTING OFFICER.

See Contracts XX, XL, XLIV.

CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT.

I. In a suit brought under Section 17 of the Contract
Settlement Act (58 Stat. 665), where it is shown
that the Government's authorized representatives
requested the contractor to make extraordinary
efforts, outside of those required under its contract,
to expedite the completion of the contract for fur-
nishing critical materials deemed necessary for the
prosecution of the war and where the request was
made under such circumstances as to constitute a
commitment by the Government to pay the excess
cost incurred by compliance with the request; it is
held that plaintiff is entitled to recover. Judgment
for $44,137.86. Maryland Sanitary Mfg. Corp., 100.
United States 70 (2).

II. Under the contract in suit certain equipment and
materials needed for the manufacture of shells were
to be furnished by the Government and others were
to be secured by the plaintiff under priority ratings.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover for extra expense
caused by the Government's delay in furnishing
certain equipment, as agreed, and by lack of priori-
ties on needed materials. Id.

United States 70 (2):

III. Following defendant's several requests for "all-out
production" because of the extremely critical char-
acter of the shells being manufactured, where the

119 C. Cls.

CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT-Continued

contractor increased its work schedule in order to
comply with these requests, plaintiff is entitled to
recover for the increased costs due to overtime pay.
Id.

IV. The court judicially recognizes that efficiency of labor
is impaired by working a 12-hour day and a 7-day
week.

Id.

Evidence 20 (1).

V. On account of the lack of certainty in plaintiff's evi-
dence as to the amount of increased costs due to
inefficiency of labor resulting from extending the
workday and workweek, plaintiff's claim for $30,-
152.95 is allowed for only $15,076.47.

CONTRACTS.

United States 74.

Id.

I. Where the Government on February 26, 1941, entered
into a contract with plaintiff for the purchase of a
"stabilizing platform in accordance with Dr. Erwin
J. Saxl specification dated 12-12-40" for the sum of
$22,000; and where the platform was delivered to
the defendant in February 1942 but was rejected on
the ground that it did not comply with the specifica-
tions; and where the Government had advanced to
plaintiff $6,600 to defray in part the cost of the con-
struction of the platform; plaintiff's claim for the
balance of the contract price is denied and the pe-
tition dismissed. Saxl, 66.

United States 74.

II. Where, on the theory that plaintiff did not comply
with his contract and therefore the advance pay-
ment was without consideration, the Government
filed a counterclaim for the $6,600 advanced; the
counterclaim is dismissed. Id.

III. In its negotiations with the plaintiff, prior to making
the contract, the Army was seeking an instrument
for use in airplanes that would take the place of the
expensive gyroscope, which remains absolutely stable
independent of any motion of its base. Plaintiff
drew a sketch embodying the idea of a stabilizing
platform for a bomb sight. This stabilizing plat-
form was essentially an automatic leveling device.

953606-51-56