B-15479, NOVEMBER 6, 1950, 30 COMP. GEN. 178

B-15479: Nov 6, 1950

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

1950: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 15. THE PERTINENT PORTION OF SAID SETTLEMENT IS AS FOLLOWS: WITH RESPECT TO THAT PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 27. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE DISCLOSES THAT THE PERIOD JANUARY 28. WAS INCLUDED IN JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 4. WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CERTIFICATE OF SETTLEMENT NO. 1155906. YOU STATE THAT WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE SERVICES INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM WERE PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME INCLUDED IN THE JUDGMENT. THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED UPON AN INCORRECT CERTIFICATION FROM THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS IN THAT SUCH CERTIFICATION INCLUDED ONLY THE TIME WORKED AT SAULT STE. WHICH WAS IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED.

B-15479, NOVEMBER 6, 1950, 30 COMP. GEN. 178

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE - JURISDICTION - MATTERS INVOLVED IN COURT OF CLAIMS JUDGMENTS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 178 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. 285) THAT PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE BY ANY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, SHALL BE A FULL DISCHARGE TO THE UNITED STATES OF ALL CLAIM AND DEMAND TOUCHING ANY OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY OPERATES AS A BAR TO THE CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE OF THE CLAIM OF A CUSTOMS INSPECTOR FOR ADDITIONAL EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES PERFORMED DURING A PERIOD OF TIME INCLUDED IN A JUDGMENT OF SAID COURT WHICH HAS BEEN PAID.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO ROBERT M. DRYSDALE, NOVEMBER 6, 1950:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 15, 1950, REQUESTING, ON BEHALF OF RAYMOND WALKER, FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THIS OFFICE IN SETTLEMENT DATED JUNE 12, 1950, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, DISALLOWED MR. WALKER'S CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL EXTRA COMPENSATION UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 7, 1920, 41 STAT. 402, FOR SERVICES RENDERED AS A CUSTOMS INSPECTOR SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 27, 1936, AND PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 26, 1944.

THE PERTINENT PORTION OF SAID SETTLEMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:

WITH RESPECT TO THAT PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 27, 1936, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE DISCLOSES THAT THE PERIOD JANUARY 28, 1936 TO FEBRUARY 26, 1944, WAS INCLUDED IN JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 4, 1945 BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NO. 45390, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CERTIFICATE OF SETTLEMENT NO. 1155906, DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1945. THAT CONNECTION, YOU STATE THAT WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE SERVICES INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM WERE PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME INCLUDED IN THE JUDGMENT, THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED UPON AN INCORRECT CERTIFICATION FROM THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS IN THAT SUCH CERTIFICATION INCLUDED ONLY THE TIME WORKED AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN, AND OMITTED TIME WORKED AT DETROIT, MICHIGAN. IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 20, 1950, TO THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE, YOU STATED THAT THE COURT DENIED A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL "BECAUSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.'

SECTION 178 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS RESTATED IN 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.) 285, WHICH WAS IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED, PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE BY ANY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AND OF ANY INTEREST THEREON ALLOWED BY LAW, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, SHALL BE A FULL DISCHARGE TO THE UNITED STATES OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMAND TOUCHING ANY OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY. SECTION 2517 (B) OF THE NEW JUDICIAL CODE AS ENACTED BY PUBLIC LAW 773, APPROVED JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 979, IS TO THE SAME EFFECT.

AS STATED BY YOU AND AS IS OTHERWISE APPARENT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE AMENDED PETITION, AS WELL AS THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE AMOUNT DUE UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE WAS BASED, THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN THE DEMAND BEFORE THE COURT INCLUDED THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE SERVICES FOR WHICH CLAIM NOW IS MADE ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, AND SINCE THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN PAID, THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE OPERATES AS A BAR TO THE CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE OF THE CLAIM NOW ASSERTED FOR AN AMOUNT IN ADDITION TO THAT ALLOWED BY THE JUDGMENT. ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE AND MEXICO RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 59 C.1CLS. 250, 272. ACCORDINGLY, THE PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT IN QUESTION MUST BE, AND IS, SUSTAINED.