TILLSON
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Claims lacked authority to award interest on delayed contract payments to a government contractor when the underlying contract did not expressly stipulate for interest and the governing statute prohibited interest awards except where contractually specified. The Court determined that although "equitably" in the special statute authorizing the suit meant the rules of law should be construed liberally in the claimant's favor, this did not override the express statutory prohibition against interest on government claims absent explicit contractual provision.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We have no doubt it was the wish of those who procured the passage of the special statute under which the Court of Claims took jurisdiction of this suit, to obtain from Congress authority for that court to'give a judgment against the United States at least for interest, in case it should.be found thatpayments on the contracts held by the claimants had been unreasonably delayed. But if Congress had desired to grant such authority, it would have been easy to have said so in express terms ; and because it did not say so, we are led irresistibly to the conclusion that it did not intend to give any such power. By the statute, the court was required to investigate the claim, and “ ascertain, determine, and adjudge the amount equitably due such firm, if any, for such loss or damage.” There is nowhere any intimation that the investigation is to. be conducted otherwise than judicially. . The reference was' made to the court as a court, and not to the judges as arbitrators. The determination iá to be made according, to the fixed rules which govern that court in the adjudication of causes, ancj. not at. the discretion of the judges. The same principles of jurisprudence and the same statutory regulations as to practice are to be applied here that would be if the case had come into the court under its general jurisdiction. It is to be ascertained and determined what, if any thing, is due -the claimants from the government, according to the rules of law applicable to the settlement in that court of controversies between the government and its citizens. The special statute-does not even provide that ‘the adjustment shall be made upon principles applicable to suits between-citizens. To our minds the word “equitably,” as here used, means-no more than that the rules of-law applicable to-the' case shall be construed liberally in favor of the claimants-As’between citizens, no allowance could be made for loss of profits consequent,on the advance in the price of materials while payments were withheld, nor for the discount on the certificates of indebtedness sold in the market. Such damages are too remote. Interest, however, would have been recoverable as against a citizen, if the payments were unreasonably delayed. But with the government the rule is different, for in addition to the practice which has long prevailed in the departments of not allowing interest on claims presented, except it is in some way specially provided for, the statute under which the Court of Claims is organized expressly declares “ that no interest shall be allowed on any claim up to the time of the rendition of judgment thereon in the Court of Claims, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for interest.” Rev. Stat., sect. 1091. This is conclusive. No interest was stipulated for in this contract, and the prohibition against its allowance has not been removed in favor of the claimants.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
The United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 518 F.2d 1309 (Ct. Cl. 1975)…the payment of interest as have been passed, apply to specific cases enumerated in the several statutes, and do not cover the present case. [*1317] The principle above stated is recognized by this court. In Tillson v. United States, 100 U.S. 43, 47, 25 L.Ed. 543, this court, speaking of the rule that interest is recoverable between citizens if a payment of money is unreasonably delayed, says that with the government the rule is different, and that the practice has long prevailed in the departments of not al…1 / 5
-
Busser v. United States, 130 F.2d 537 (3d Cir. 1942)…, and this appeal followed. The question turns upon the application of an appropriate statute for the sovereign is not liable for interest unless there is a statutory requirement or a contract to pay it. Tillson v. United States, 1879, 100 U.S. 43, 25 L.Ed. 543; United States v. North Carolina, 1890, 136 U.S. 211, 10 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed. 336. The applicable statute provides that “Interest shall be * * * paid upon any overpayment in respect of any internal-revenue tax, at the rate of 6 per centum per annum,…
-
Gray v. Dukedom Bank, 216 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1954)…atically upon the allowance of the claim. In the absence of constitutional requirements interest can be recovered against the United States only if express consent to such a recovery has been given by Congress. Tillson v. United States, 100 U.S. 43, 25 L.Ed. 543; United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 67 S.Ct. 601, 91 L.Ed. 577; United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48, 71 S.Ct. 552, 95 L.Ed. 738; See 28 U.S.Code, §§ 2411(b), 2516, 2674. There is no express provision in the…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence