*1 at least country period of for a or countries STATES. DICK UNITED v. years before the date country No. changes his from such residence States, received amounts United Claims. United States Court of States United from sources without the Feb. States paid the United (except amounts attribu- any agency thereof), which are foreign period of part table of such date, amounts if such residence before such para- constitute earned income as defined ; shall not individual
graph (3) but such gross from his a deduction
be allowed as allocable
income deductions excluded against amounts chargeable this subsection.” gross income under seems quoted language of the statute
The quite ex- us fit the instant situation required
actly. had had the The decedent his sick
foreign He residence. had earned service, salary, and the foreign
leave in bank, by a New York
though paid 'branch.
charged its Rio de by it to Janeiro salary Government treated the Government as earned income when MADDEN, J., dissenting. income, it If not earned taxed it. it was us, was, gift, far as occurs so income at been taxed as not have should taxed, Govern- and the But all. concede, and, suppose, we ment would concede, noncon- that such
ought not to are not as income payments taxable
tractual ordinary situations. exemp- urges Government 116(a) (2) is some- granted Section
tion upon contingent payment in-
how question period
come taxes for taxpayer resid- foreign country where the Justis, Washington, D. C. W. T. V. question income earned. when the Await, Hartford, Conn., (Hewes & may well taxation double avoidance brief), plaintiff. the en- motives for one of the have been Ganong, Washington, C.,D. F. John section, language actment Morison, Atty. Gen., H. G. Asst. imposition of taxes not make does defendant. government foreign payment their permitted precedent to ex- a condition JONES, Judge, Chief and LIT- Before conclude, therefore, that the clusion. WHITAKER, MADDEN, TLETON, $1,755.52 with interest recover HOWELL, Judges. provided by law. ordered. It is so JONES, Judge. Chief value
Plaintiff for the of two sues patterns spare parts and pellers, furnished HOWELL, Judge, and JONES, Chief Guard, United States Coast the value LITTLETON, Judges, WHITAKER alleges $59,275. to have concur.
327 Briefly petition requirements alleges during cordance of with all period Plan, Guard was Coast Guard involved Coast 96-CR-4400-4. Navy; jurisdiction under hand, Propellers, (2) 2. com- two left prior Navy 1944 the Guard and the Coast plete spare with (3) blades for each of jointly type propeller designed a new of propellers two and all additional items vessels; icebreaking use on that on June indicated Guard in list of material on Coast 30, 1944, plaintiff agreed manufac- dimensions, Plan No. 96-CR-4400-5. The shipset ture and furnish Navy one finish, requir- shall all be as materials propeller equipment including of new ed on Guard Plan Coast 96-CR-4400-5. propellers, spare hubs, blades 2 sets” price $55,096.70, equipment negotiation request This for bid was be manufactured in with a des- accordance plain- ignated plan. by submitted the Coast Guard to the July Guard Coast Then on only. tiff 21, 1944, contract, It plaintiff was not submitted other agreed, $19,556, for the sum contractors. There considerable followed to manufacture the correspondence. telegraphic components propeller bow Each of the new n telegrams equipment. sent specified This contained contract also equipment Navy reference to should be In his manufactured contract. telegram plaintiff specified first stated “We accordance with now Coast * ** Navy have exception a plan Guard with for iden- of certain ** propeller tical blades *.” The tele- These modifications. two contracts result- grams $74,753.80 also discussed a ed conference to be complete in a for one shipset held propeller one On equipment. new officials. January 10, 1945, plaintiff, About these apparently contracts there be- negotiation dispute. lief that ship- called for no one propeller set equipment, of the new tele- 26, 1944, On December the United States graphed quotations the Coast Guard on headquarters Coast Guard Washington, Item No. $51,032; 1 for 2 sets for item requested C.,D. pro- a bid on new similar $16,911.10. telegram No. also stated peller equipment. appeared The following “This same as Ships Bureau of order less page negotiations: first gauges patterns.” the male and female “Telegraphic requested, bid to be con- submitting this bid made a using firmed mail this bid form.” thought He mistake. he was submitting a The requirements, listed on the third bid propellers for one set 2of bow page negotiation, were described as propeller, rather than two sets of 2 propel- follows: propeller lers and a bow each. There fol- telegraphic lowed several communications. Description “Item No. Quantity February Then on the Coast Unit Price Total headquarters Guard Washington issued Propellers, “1. each set consisting negotiation, second bearing the same propeller, hand (1) right left pro- identifying hand symbols. received spare peller, (3) right blades for hand negotiation revised February 21, peller, (1) spare propeller hub right day, February next propeller, spare hand plaintiff, blades for left impression under still propeller, hand spare propeller negotiation hub the called for shipset propeller. for left hand propeller the new 'equipment, telegraphed sets quoted price Coast Guard a $68,275, included, in addition to the items All as indicated on Coast Guard Plan No. previous negotiation, pat- new set of 96-CR-4400-4 Alteration O. The above $4,500. terns at On propellers complete blades to be .with telegraphed Guard that— additional items covered list of ma- terials (quantities for one ship) “Subject as indicat- execution formal your plan. above mentioned Finish, telegraphic 22 February accepted offer of * * * dimensions materials shall be in ac- in amount of 47555 dollars item accept- referred to above which 2 also set bore 16220 dollars item
one and ** * patterns Proceed as March ance of dollars * * * acknowledge.” prepared with work The Coast Guard *3 purchase price in was tract which the 1945, plaintiff ac- 27, the February On $127,550. 5, clearly April stated to be On receipt On knowledged the of order. Guard, 1945, the Coast after the contract plain- 1945, sent 8, March the Coast Guard division, approved legal had been its plaintiff purchase tiff in which its order copies original sent the and two the 15, supplier. On March was named plaintiff formal contract to for execution. 1945, deposited manager plaintiff’s assistant 1945, April 9, Plaintiff received on them accept- the in mail for the Coast Guard an day the and same executed returned purchase following ance of the order. The In May them to the Coast Guard. 1945, day, 16, plaintiff telegraphed March plaintiff that Procurement the learned the the the mis- Coast Guard that he had made Legal of the Coast sets, Division Guard had de- quoting take of set instead two termined that the Coast Guard could not price the On that should doubled. execute the 17, 1945, the formal contract unless March the sent Guard Coast Comptroller plaintiff telegram General of the United States stating a alleged growing ruled that the quotation propellers “Your wire for was telegraphic out of the communications was quotation confirmed your formal dated subject prepared Plaintiff reformation. February” 25, 1945, July petition and on submitted a and then added Comptroller General reformation for “request explanation prices letter de- alleged Comptroller of the contract. The * ** scribed as mistake also detailed General that the had stated not been cost break-down.” previously presented to that office for acceptance apparently mailed did plaintiff’s sideration and letter afforded no not reach defendant’s officials about proper time, until for action at that basis but that 21, March report requested 1945. the from August Depart- In Navy. 1945 the explana- plaintiff then submitted an Comptroller ment submitted to the General Robbins, his mistake to Lt. Comdr. tion of negotiation report covering the between Guard, then contract- Coast United States plaintiff. Au- the Coast Guard On officer, charge nego- was in who gust 1945, Comptroller rul- 31, General At conference it was stated tiations. legal ed that there was no basis modi- had obvious a mistake price in the fying stated bid of the con- agreed Commander to a made and Robbins ruling A tractor. reconsideration of $127,550 price stated that January 15, was denied 1946. prepare Guard would a formal the Coast In meantime the requirements covering the of the with manufacture of ceeded purchase price negotiation in which spare parts. shipsets propellers De- in amount of the re- would be set forth completed February in livery $127,550. rep- quotation, Plaintiff’s vised February submit- On it would was informed that take resentative propellers spare ted for the an invoice formal contract to be time for the parts $127,550. sum of On about prepared urgency in view of the and that April 15, 1947, received from propellers, defendant need $68,- Guard a check in the amount proceed with the desired work accepting Plaintiff, check, pro- preparation propellers pending.the on the $59,275 tested the deduction from and issuance of the formal contract rights total invoiced reserved all Plaintiff, relying agreement with thereto. officer, went contracting ahead reference propellers. manufacture many telegraphic com- view of munications, changes, modifications and 1945, 31, Guard On March the Coast re- any is doubtful whether formal contract turned to following quote really occurred sender. minds meeting Contracts, 52, page 405: C.J.S., from 17 At negotiations. process during rate, determine we are unable to reclaiming regulations as to “Post-office petition that such allegations final acceptance is letter. —The rule made. contract was definite posted modi- when the letter has been Regula- bid contends The defendant fied Office United States Post 1945, and the February tions writer of §§ a contract. constituted February a letter he has apply sender However, it will be noted put mail, and when 22 he stated: telegraphic offer of postmaster identified must return *4 him telegraph to the office of the ad- 47,555 item and quote dollars “We dressee, postmaster whose return it must 4,500 you 16,200 plus item two dollars if mailing postmaster to if new, the it has been not pro- but we patterns, set require a of delivered, to the effect that a letter which now we have. patterns the pose to use ” * * * posted, has been which has been return- supplied.] [Italics ed regulations, under such does not con- February reply of Guard in its The Coast acceptance.” stitute an 23 stated at the outset: In the case Traders’ Bank of National “Subject your execution Bank, 229, v. First 142 National 217 Tenn. accepted telegraphic offer 22 977, 382, particular S.W. 9 this A.L.R. propellers and furnishing blades hubs.” change postal regulations the discuss- in is messages Apparently both of these left ed, and the First Bank case of National something to be determined before the First of Murfreesboro v. National Bank definitely completed. agreement was al., 205, of Nashville 127 154 et Tenn. S.W. earnestly Defendant contends that re- 965, quoted approval. Supreme is correspondence, gardless previous all of Court of Tennessee made reference to the prepared the orders which were decisions which had theretofore held that March and Guard on in depositing of a letter the mails was plaintiff, mailed to and re- 229, and Tenn. final then said 217 S. [142 March and- ceived : W. 978] mail, deposited signed constitut- cases, they “These as in so far deal with completion ed an of the circumstances, proceed similar on the theo- contract which could revoked not ry delivery completed that a is when the plaintiff, telegram though even of re- subject posted delivery of is in the mail. vocation was received the defendant delivery, “The test as in noted our days before several the mailed order ac- cases, power grantor is the of a deed ceptance. Plaintiff, day March or maker of a note to recall the Has same. acceptance, following mailing of his parted with dominion control over changed defendant his wired error * * so, delivery. it? If there has been a quotation specified his to double the amount “Heretofore it has assumed that in order. posted beyond when a letter was depositing the old authorities the Under sender, control of the became the parties. mails was both final as to in property put as of the addressee in soon when a This was on the basis that letter 302. We think mail. all the C.J. deposited beyond it mails complainant relied cases bas- are person mailing the control of the it. How- supposition. on this ed ever, years ago the Post Office De- letter, posted, regard- when can “If partment changed regulation its beyond sender, the control anyone depositing a letter vided that in may delivery it well be concluded then might might mail reclaim it and even re- contents to addressee has been postmaster quire point at send- perfected. postmaster wire the at destination “By Regu- return the United Post Office the letter and that the Post States Office Department required change would be to return lations has §§ subject- rights parties. The until one control of the lost been made as delivery, apply a let- matter of the then it was not writer or sender now completed here, since, postal put mail, when it ter, under the which is identified, postmaster regulations, the must defendant bank en- him, telegraph to the office titled to reclaim this from the mail return it to letter addressee, postmaster -complainant. must before it reached the whose mailed, court, post may also, English regard where as did return it to the office post sender, agent if has been delivered.” office as and, postal regulations, under and the our authority the last statement ref- As case, facts of this until the letter was de- Cote, parte Ex L.R. is made erence livered addressee.” Appeal English Court 27. The Ch. Proctor, Tenn.App. See also Miller v. question Chancery fol- discusses the 439, 145 807, 812. S.W.2d language: lowing questions There are several in the instant “In property to make the including: pass, bills is not sufficient indorse (1) whether in them; view all they must be delivered to in- confer- ences, previous dorsee, agent contracts and -communica- If indorsee. *5 tions the was agent, charged defendant his with the indorser delivers them to own plaintiff’s knowledge them; It mistake. was agent he can if to the of the recover perhaps an indorsee, understandable mistake under he cannot recover them. circumstances similar to the one involved question “The therefore arises: Of Rappoli States, in Edmund Co. United v. J. post party agent. the office is the 499, 517; 98 CtCl. [England], country In this where the send- there whether a get er of a ever definite letter cannot it returned after it contract, plaintiff rely in which event posted, must has been if the a indorsee of bill recovery on the authorizes the indorser to send the bill market reasonable value of office, machinery the through post furnished and the the bill soon as ac- cepted ; posted property it becomes the is the according the regulations But indorsee. (3) the -circumstances and conditions post person the a French office who the surrounding depositing- in mail the posts complying a back get letter it purchase 15, order on March whether forms certain at time before signed parties, both and the ef- posted. has where it letter left town is delivery fect of the the telegram advis- I am inclined to think the effect of days of the mistake several before post agent is that rule is that the office purchase order; defendant received the of the until it leaves sender letter and town, and indorsement authority what had been delegated complete in it till contained is not bills Guard under the First War dispatched is letter town.” Powers Act1 or the Executive Orders is- case, Bank the Traders’ National su- pursuant thereto, otherwise, sued to ne- mailed, pra, after a check had been modify gotiate, execute or contracts. telephoned bank addressee bank and questions None these can be The ad- asked that the check returned. proof being determined without taken of Bank, dressee, Traders National de- Certainly the case. light the facts in in the brought suit clined and collect allegations plaintiff’s peti- all -check. The of the court denied amount it cannot determined at tion this time recovery, approving and the distinction entitled not The is recover. de- English said: case made It is so murrer is overruled. ordered. authority seems to us well reason- “This HOWELL, and, extending slightly, WHITAKER, and ed, covers the LIT- delivery complete TLETON, Judges, If is not before us. concur. seq. 839, U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1 55 Stat. 601 et question the Govern- I think the whether MADDEN, Judge (dissenting). “subject ment’s words execution opinion agree with the I am unable rath- contract” a offer amounted to counter it, case, is I see court. closing than a contract er an error, of an plaintiff, by reason where the which, question difficulty is how- a of some to manufacture made a bid a ever, If it necessary it is to answer. not at Government equipment certain turn, was, in a offer that offer was counter error, he which, would a signed accepted by the when con- have The Government’s named. not copy order. and mailed a officer, tracting to solicit authorized “formal contract” of consider- That was a contract, having no knowl- bid and make details, length full containing able error, suspicion edge or argued party it cannot be either con- accepted and the contract offer templated a still later of some execution Shortly thereafter closed. longer other still document. sought rescission his error discovered made, My the contract. con- reformation of statement that contract was tracting sign- officer was convinced least when mailed the at error which he supported by had Re- made claimed, willing Contracts, rescind the statement of Sections made, place already Contracts, tract and make Vol. Williston Rev.Ed. embodying the terms new where the author cites authori- Section courts, would offered if have ties from numerous American fed- question state, says, made the was eral and error. at end of note Comptroller contrary only submitted General of to section “The deci- *6 who decided that the the United States con- sion not seems to be McCulloch overruled right Pick., Mass., tracting Eagle Co., not have the to 1 officer did v. Ins. already made and rescind the contract this would now be followed Whether terms (citing make new more favorable in doubted Massachusetts be plaintiff. qualification this cases). to the Because of decision In Tennessee some made, general made, the new contract not the of rule was has see Government, perform- infra, after 86.” The author’s Tennessee ref- ance, with him the basis of settled the erence is Traders’ National Bank to v. one, which, Bank, protests making First 142 217 National Tenn. old adequate preserve assume, I were to what- S.W. 9 case is A.L.R. re- rights he opinion ever further had. lied on in the court instant case. the Tennessee case the being alleged foregoing The the facts actually had mailed party who the letter plaintiff’s petition it, as I read I withdrew from the mail so that it think it not state a cause of does action delivered, and the never court said that subject that it is to The demurrer. except for that withdrawal it actual would agree points not would mailing delivery have treated the as a to no statement. He asserts that If that the addressee. distinction were was made because the Gov- contract person followed would mean that the telegraphic acceptance on Feb- ernment’s mailing acceptance a binding con- his ruary offer of con- of mailing, tract the time but that “subject words execution tained party accept- to whom mailed the contract”; because the formal ance would not have one until he received detailed letter, rights subject his signed and mailed to the Government on power sender’s to withdraw his letter from by 15 had not been received March any mails at time before it was deliver- it received his tele- before Government I ed to the think addressee. little can be sent March 16 which advised gram justification said in such a doctrine. said, of his mistake and Government willing effect, he was not make event must be Some occasion selected basis of order. by contract the law as the one which converts ne- has, Department in ted gotiation to excuse into contract. law delivering fact, from his him contract award selected the overt act acceptance post one, an as that occasion. another and more liberal need we not in- decide, I things think court to since these were it is a mistake for the not author- satisfactorily by Department set- ized sup- be I troduce confusion into done. pose that, urged except decision it would legal The court’s for tled not situation. extraordinary mean, quite certainly, legislation con- would referred acceptance above, has auhority his one who to make a tractor who had mailed has, merely him Government contract for the an offer made to Government having his contract subject losing still fact of his made the would con- tract, should, authority it re- if before the Government surrender the Gov- telephone acceptance, rights ernment’s under that ceives his letter of withdrawing excusing performance. telegraph him offer. Whatever au- thority might I there That has been the law and think be to do such an un- usual harmful potentially should act must be not be. legislation derived from and from au- think, then, binding I that there awas authority. higher thorization executive contract, far as so the mechanics of allegation There is author- no such exchange of communications concern- ity- having upon the been conferred exchange ed. The mere such communi- plain- tracting sending His officer. not, equity, cations would make a con- April copies tiff on a new tract, equitable why if there an reason containing higher price, plaintiff urges it should that am- not. signing plaintiff and by the return to him biguity writings in the Government’s in- did replacing not create a new contract plaintiff’s mistake, duced the and hence it old, though quite conclusively it showed inequitable would be the Government the contracting intention officer’s to do so upon to insist its contract. The permitted by superiors. if he would be his says upon bidding only he was one set of plaintiff urges Government’s equipment. person actually But the who contracting officer, here an officer of the perfect- wrote the him knew Guard, had constructive notice of ly sets, well that the bid was for two be- *7 price charged which person cause that expressly divided the Navy equipment, for similar since some total half, bid sum in and set the half down messages said, plaintiff’s to him after total, as the unit bid and the with a prices, they were the quoting bid that same slight miscalculation, as twice the amount Navy charged the on a as those price. pos- of the unit There was no other performed. that, think being currently I basis for the division in half sible ap- prices quoted by except recognition bid that there were reasonable, duty there was no parently speak I to of this not be sets. to con- officer to obtain and ex- the Coast Guard plaintiff’s allegation tradict the that er- an I Navy can think amine the contract. made, ror was but to show Gov- only might impel- have two reasons writings plain were to at least ernment’s thought led him that he to do so: people staff, some of telling he truth when ambiguous enough were not to and hence quoted prices higher said that his were not equity, inducing an regarded, in as cause charged than those that was, otherwise, unilateral what error to mistake, thought might, by he plaintiff’s part. on the prices quoting less than those charged said, Navy. made, assump- I think either of these If, as I have quite rescinded, irrational, validly tions would have I it was never think why ought he by that there no reason replaced another Whether contract. powers suspected contracting given have known even the broad some quoted plaintiff’s prices First War were departments Powers Act error. is, therefore, no foundation There and Executive Order No. SO con- U.S.C.A. note, permit- Appendix, would have structive notice. hardship then, have, a case I plaintiff’s error.
brought about rules the usual apply to it we should
think the mak- regard to equity with
of law contracts, rules performance to the Government apply
which we would it; rules been made if error had would jurisdiction general a court of Gov- private litigants, the
apply as between Under these being in the case.
ernment not them, a contract is
rules, I understand as thing, unknown subjective
not a of one of inner unmanifested intention up thing, made objective
parties. It is an outwardly made the manifestations upon the seen and acted parties, to be contracts, that, assumption making rea- says, when there no
means what suppose In this does not. son to done, gets itself business
way the world’s per- suffered, hardship is
an occasional know made contracts what who have
sons expect
they have, and can that their made, performed. sup- I
tracts, will be community,
pose commercial year every are made contracts
scores of parties regrets, them
which one of the some cir- was mistaken
because he relating seems This case
cumstance it. striking ex- only a somewhat me to be
ample unilateral mistake. of that kind of law, experience, long has not in its contracts, such
thought it wise undo wrong. law is say I cannot Wattawa, Washington, D. C. John Rieser, Madison, Wis.,
(R. M. *8 plaintiffs. brief), for Pittle, Washington, C., Herbert D. Vanech, Atty. Gen., de- Asst. Devitt A. fendant. JONES, Judge, and HOW-
Before Chief MADDEN, ELL, WHITAKER LIT- UNITED STATES. et al. v. BURKHARDT TLETON, Judges. No. States of Claims. United Court HOWELL, Judge. Feb. River Willow On Company, predecessor in interest Power case, present suit plaintiffs filed Claims to Court of recover 45067 the No. power capacity loss of of its for the plant, located near the con-
hydroelectric Willow River and the St. fluence River, caused the action Croix