Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation

Good Law
178 F.2d 854·1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3666
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 21, 194912200California2,654 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goodman, J.

Whether a contractor may maintain a court action against the United States for damages because of the termination by the United States of a war contract pursuant to the War Mobilization and Reconversion Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 785 , 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 1651 et seq., or whether relief ab initio can only be sought administratively under the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., 58 Stat. 649 , is the main question presented in this appeal.

The contract’in suit was made on June 28, 1943 between appellant, a cement company, and Defense Plant Corporation, a subsidiary of respondent Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The motivation for the contract was the mutual desire of appellant and the United States Government to determine the feasibility of commercially extracting alumina from our native anorthosite ores by a method developed by appellant. Defense Plant Corporation undertook to furnish the money necessary to construct and operate a test plant. Appellant agreed to supervise the construction of the plant and to license to Defense Plant Corporation the use of its process. The contract provided that, appellant should operate the plant for Defense Plant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.