Court of Claims, 1925

Schwarzenberg v. United States

Court of Claims · Decided June 1, 1925 · Geaham, Took

60 Ct. Cl. 898; 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 449; 1925 WL 2729

Counsel

Mr. Edward A. Harrimcm for the plaintiff., Mr. Percy M. Gox, tvith whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Meads v. United States (Court of Claims 1957)
Condenser Service & Engineering Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1953)
S. Silberstein & Son, Inc. v. United States (Court of Claims 1930)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*902MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT

One proposition, without consideration of any others, is determinative of this case. The authority of the law was to sell certain classes of materials, and it went no further. If *903tbe materials contracted to be sold were in fact nonexistent, there could be as to them no contract of sale.- There was no authority to contract the delivery of materials which the Government did not have.

The plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of the materials, except upon paper in the form of items upon inventories, and upon the whole record the court has concluded that they were nonexistent. It is but another case of the infliction of an injury by reason of a mistake, due, no doubt, to the immense volume of such transactions then being handled.

It may be suggested that, charged with knowledge of (lie limitations as to the actual existence of property thus sold and purchased, it would have been prudent on the part of the plaintiff — perhaps his duty — to have made some investigation before entering into contracts for resale.

Geaham:, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.