DOBYNES AND MORTON

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• In re Pringle Eng'g & MFG. Co. Snakard v. Kennedy, 164 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1947)
  …laries, it could not rise phoenix-like out of the ashes of the revocation of the salary clause, because it is a general rule that the terms of a contract must be determined by the law in effect when the contract is made. Hannay v. Eve, 3 Cranch 242, 2 L.Ed. 427; Steffey, Inc. v. Bridges, 140 Md. 429,117 A. 887. The proposed bonus, moreover, was in derogation of the spirit as well as the purpose of the Act, namely, “In order to aid in the effective prosecution of the war, the President is authorized * * * t…
• Licznerski v. United States, 180 F.2d 862 (3d Cir. 1950)
  …hibited by Section 616 of the Act. It was illegal and void as contrary to the public policy expressly declared by Congress. Cf. Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 42 S.Ct. 442, 66 L.Ed. 858. See also Hannay v. Eve, 3 Cranch 242, 7 U.S. 242, 246-247, 2 L.Ed. 427. We, of course must be governed by the federal law and decisions but it should be noted that the weight of general authority also sustains the view that where an agreement is entered 'into in violation of a statutory provision, or a public policy, t…