Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.

The issue raised here is, “Whether or not a prime War Contractor, aggrieved of the findings of the contracting agency on his claim which had been filed pursuant to the war Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-125 , is entitled to a jury trial when he seeks relief under Section 13(b) (2), 41 U.S.C.A. § 113 (b) (2), of the Act?”

The facts of the present case are found in two former opinions, Monolith Portland Mid. Co. v. R. F. C, 9 Cir., 1949; 178 F.2d 854 , and Monolith Portland Mid. Co. v. R. F. C., 9 Cir., 1951, 95 F.Supp. 570 .

Since the Act is silent on the right to jury trial, it becomes necessary to review the Act, its history, and the nature of the action to discover the intent of Congress.

I.

A. Purpose of the Act.

The purpose for which the Act was passed is clear. 41 U.S.C.A. § 101 . To preserve the national economy, Congress had to provide a quick, efficient and equitable method of settling terminated war contracts and of expediting reconversion. One of the objectives was to achieve uniformity not only among Governmental agencies charged with termination settlements and interim financing, 41 U.S.C.A. § 101 (c) but also among instrumentalities of…