Skip to main content

B-120290, DEC. 11, 1956

B-120290 Dec 11, 1956
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 20. THE PERTINENT FACTS AND THE REASONS FOR DECLINING TO COMPLY WITH YOUR PREVIOUS REQUEST ARE SET OUT IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL IN OUR LETTERS OF JANUARY 13. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CHECK WAS ISSUED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ON A SETTLEMENT. THE CHECK WAS MAILED IN THE CARE OF YOUR ATTORNEY. IT IS STATED THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE CHECK WAS MADE "BECAUSE OF THE REFUSAL OF JACK T. WHO WAS ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE ABOVE STYLED ACTION. SINCE THE CHECK WAS MAILED TO AND RECEIVED BY MR. CONN IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR YOUR REQUEST IS THE APPARENT DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND MR.

View Decision

B-120290, DEC. 11, 1956

TO STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 20, 1956, RELATIVE TO CHECK NO. 10035282, DATED AUGUST 29, 1955, DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF MAE T. STEBBINS AND BARNEY W. HARRELL, A CO-PARTNERSHIP D/B/A STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,721.94. YOU RENEW YOUR REQUEST THAT THE CHECK BE VOIDED AND A SUBSTITUTE CHECK ISSUED, TO BE SENT TO MRS. MAE T. STEBBINS, 1504 YALE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA.

THE PERTINENT FACTS AND THE REASONS FOR DECLINING TO COMPLY WITH YOUR PREVIOUS REQUEST ARE SET OUT IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL IN OUR LETTERS OF JANUARY 13, 1956, AND OCTOBER 24, 1956. BRIEFLY, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CHECK WAS ISSUED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ON A SETTLEMENT, CERTIFICATE NO. 2264455 DATED AUGUST 18, 1955, BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON JULY 11, 1955, IN THE CASE OF STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CO-PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF BARNEY W. HARRELL AND MAE T. STEBBINS V. THE UNITED STATES, CIVIL NO. 6249, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE IN YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 1, 1955, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND TO OUR OFFICE, THE CHECK WAS MAILED IN THE CARE OF YOUR ATTORNEY, JACK T. CONN, AMERICAN BUILDING, ADA, OKLAHOMA. THE FILE INDICATES THAT MR. CONN ACTED AS YOUR ATTORNEY IN THE REFERRED-TO LITIGATION.

IN MR. HARRELL'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 2, 1955, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, IT IS STATED THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBSTITUTE CHECK WAS MADE "BECAUSE OF THE REFUSAL OF JACK T. CONN, WHO WAS ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE ABOVE STYLED ACTION, TO DELIVER THE ABOVE MENTIONED CHECK NO. 10,035,282 TO PLAINTIFFS, ALTHOUGH INFORMAL AND FORMAL DEMAND FOR SUCH DELIVERY HAS BEEN MADE.' SINCE THE CHECK WAS MAILED TO AND RECEIVED BY MR. CONN IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR YOUR REQUEST IS THE APPARENT DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND MR. CONN AS TO THE POSSESSION OF THE CHECK, A MATTER IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT BECOME INVOLVED.

FOR THE REASONS ABOVE INDICATED, THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION WHICH PROPERLY MAY BE TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE IN THE MATTER AND YOUR REQUEST IS THEREFORE DENIED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs