Chamberlain Machine Works v. United States
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Girard Trust Bank v. Martin (3d Cir. 1977)
- Girard Trust Bank v. Martin (3d Cir. 1977)
- Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Fox Theatres Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 1960)
- In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
- Baskett v. United States (Court of Claims 1983)
- Bernstein v. N. v. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij (District Court, S.D. New York 1948)
- Meeker v. Baxter (2d Cir. 1936)
- Lucas v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (4th Cir. 1932)
- Domenech v. Havemeyer (1st Cir. 1931)
- United States v. A. Bentley & Sons Co. (6th Cir. 1927)
- Meier v. Schulte (Mich. 1950)
- True v. Older (Minn. 1948)
- City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa v. Generac Holdings Inc (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 2025)
- H. B. Nelson Construction Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1940)
- Siff v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
- Siff v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
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
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Chamberlain Machine Works filed its petition in the Court of Claims to recover compensation for the partial performance • of a war contract for the machining of steel shells, which had been cancelled by the United States before completion, pursuant to the terms of the contract. The petition was dismissed on demurrer, without opinion. 59 Ct. Cls. 972. The appeal was allowed in June, 1924.
The petition and an exhibit thereto disclosed that the claim was originally prosecuted in the War Department, under the Dent Act, in. yarious proceedings before the Ordinance Section of the Claims Board, the Board of Contract Adjustment, 1 and the Appeal Section of the Claims Board; 2 and that the Secretary of War made an award to the petitioner of $41,300.05, “ in full adjustment, payment, and discharge ” of the contract, which was accepted by the petitioner, in writing, in “ full satisfaction of any and all claims or demands ” which it had or might have pertaining to, growing out of, or incident to the contract..
The petition sought to recover on the original contract, despite the settlement made more than three years, before. It alleged, broadly, that this settlement was iniquitous and unjust, and not the voluntary act of the petitioner, but was secured by “frahd” of the officers of the War Department in the handling of the claim, by “ continued brow-beating,” and by “coercion” through which they “ literally forced ” the petitioner to take the sum offered.
*349 The general allegations of “fraud” and “coercion” were mere conclusions of the pleader; and were not admitted by the demurrer. Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118, 127. To show a cause of action it was necessary that the petition state distinctly the particular acts of fraud and -coercion relied'on, specifying by whcfen and in what manner they were perpetrated, with such definiteness and reasonable certainty that the court might see that, if proved, they would warrarit the setting aside of the settlement. See Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 818, 829; Perkins-Campbell Co. v. United States, 264 U. S. 213, 218; Cairo Railroad v. United States, 267 U. S. 350, 352. The petition contained no such specific allegations; and since its vague and general averments did not overcome thet effect of the release’, the demurrer was properly sustained. See St. Louis Railroad v. United States, 267 U. S. 346, 350.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.