Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States, 271 U.S. 43 (1926)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 271 U.S. 40, click here.

Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States

No. 609

Argued March 3, 4, 1926
Decided April 12, 1926
271 U.S. 43

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear and decide a claim, existing under Jud.Code, § 145, was not affected by a resolution of the Senate referring to that court for consideration and report (Jud.Code, § 151) a bill for payment of the claim. P. 44.

2. The fact that a government contractor signed a settlement after negotiations in which government officers threatened to break the existing contract if the settlement were not accepted does not of itself support a legal inference that the settlement was procured by duress. Freund v. United States, 260 U.S. 60, distinguished. P. 48.

3. A threat to break a contract does not constitute duress in the absence of evidence of some probable consequences of it to person or property for which the remedy afforded by the courts would be inadequate. P. 49.

4. Mutual promises of the parties are adequate consideration sustaining a compromise of a disputed contract. P. 50.

60 Ct.Cls. 712 affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims.