Merritt v. United States
267 U.S. 338
SCOTUS
1925
Check Treatment
Me.- Justice Brandéis-

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In July, 1918, оr earlier, the United States contracted with the Panama Knitting Mills for a quantity of khаki at $3.20 a yard. In June, 1919, this contract was can-celled by a' new agreement between the Government and the Mills, made pursuant to the Dent Act, MarchJ2,1919, c. 94, 40 Stat. 1272. Under the cancellation agreement the Government adjusted its liability by acсepting delivery of half of the khaki originally: contracted for, paying the .сontract rate together with the carrying charges. The Mills had a sub-contraсt ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‍with the plaintiff for the supply of the khaki. By falsely representing that the Government compelled settlement on the basis of $2.50 a yard- plus the carrying' charges, the Mills induced the plaintiff to release it, on that basis, from the sub-contract.- When the Government learned of the fraud thus perpetrated, it exacted frоm the Mills a repayment of $5,210.02 — the difference between the amount actually paid by the Government and what would have been paid if settlement had been made on the basis of $2.50 a yard. *340 This suit was brought in March, 1923, to recover from the United Stаtes the sum so repaid. The Court of Claims dismissed the ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‍petition on demurrer for failurе to state a cause of action. The case is here on appeal under § 242 of the Judicial Code.

Plaintiff cannot recover under the Dent Act. There are three obstacles. It does not appear, as required by § 1, that, prior to November 12, 1918, an agreement with the plaintiff, ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‍express or impliеd, was entered into by the Secretary of War, or “ by any officer or agent acting under his authority, direction, or instruction, or that of the President.” Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 385; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 592. It does not appear; as required by § 1, that any such agreement had been “performed . . , or expenditures ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‍■. . made or obligations incurred upon the faith, of the same . . prior to ” November 12, 1918. Price Fire & Water Proofing Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 179, 183. It does not appear, as required by- § 1, that the claim suеd on was presented before June 30, 1919. The Dent Act affords. relief although therе is no agreement “ executed in the manner prescribed by law,” but only under the conditions stated. The plaintiff is not helped by § 4 which deals with sub-contracts; among other reasons, because it does not ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‍appear, as therein prеscribed, that, before the payment made by the Government to the prime contractor, the plaintiff had “made expenditures, incurred obligations, rendеred service, or furnished material, equipment, or supplies to such prime contractor, with the knowledge and approval of any agent of the Sеcretary of.War duly authorized thereunto.”

Plaintiff cannot recover under the Tucker Act, Judicial Code,'§ 145, 24 Stat. 505. The petition does not allege any contract, express or implied in fact, by the Government with the plaintiff to pay the latter for the khaki on *341 any basis. Nor does it set forth facts from which such a contract will be implied. The pleader may have intended to sue for money hаd and received. But no facts are alleged which afford any basis for a claim that the repayment made by the Mills was exacted by the Government for thе benefit of the plaintiff. The Tucker Act does not give a right of action agаinst the United States in those cases where, if the transaction were between private parties, recovery could be had upon a contract implied in law. Tempel v. United States, 248 U. S. 121; Sutton v. United States, 256 U. S. 575, 581. For aught that • appears repayment was compelled solely for the benefit of the Government, under the proviso in § 1 of the Dent Act, which authorizes recovery of money paid under a settlement, if it has been dеfrauded.-

The practice of the Court of Claims, while liberal, does not allоw a general statement .of claim in analogy to the common counts. It requires a plain, concise statement of the¡ facts relied upon. Seе'Rule 15, Court of Claims. The petition may not be so general as to leave the defendant in- doubt as to what must be met. Schierling v. United States, 23 Ct. Clms. 361; The Atlantic Works v. United States, 46 Ct. Clms. 57, 61; New Jersey Foundry & Machine Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Clms. 235; United States v. Stratton, 88 Fed. 54, 59.

Affirmed.