Page images
PDF
EPUB

It is the intention of the board to make a personal visit to each plant affected by this commandeer for the purpose of verifying such statements as have been filed, and this, you appreciate, will take some time, as there are some sixty-odd firms affected by the commandeer.

When and as soon as you have made definite arrangements to vacate the space now occupied by you, kindly notify the board as to the date upon which you expect to remove from the premises now occupied. Yours very truly,

SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
By ROBERT STEWART,
Assistant Engineer, U. S. N. (ret.),

Member and Recorder. VI. On July 22 the plaintiff company addressed to the respresentative of the Navy Department the following communication:

JULY 22, 1918. ROBERT STEWART, Assistant Engineer, U. S. Navy,

280 Broadway, New York City. DEAR Sır: In connection with the commandeering order covering Bush Building No. 4, in which we are occupying two lofts, we want to place before you the fact that one of the lofts known as the east section, now leased by us, was taken some time ago only to provide ourselves with extra space that would be required later on. The commandeering order makes it impossible for us to carry out the plans we had made for expansion, and also prevents us from subletting this space which we are now free to vacate almost in its entirety. The rental of this space, which is now lost to us for the remainder of the period of our occupancy, is a heavy burden, and whether or not your board would sanction a claim from us covering this loss, we wish to inquire if the Government can not make use of it in advance of December 1st, thus saving us from considerable expense. We would like very much to have you consider this matter and advise us at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly,

P. L. ANDREWS CORPORATION.

And on July 25, 1918, receipt of said letter was acknowledged and response made thereto as follows:

OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
THIRD Naval DISTRICT, 280 BROADWAY,

New York, N. Y., July 25, 1918. Material Department, Legal and Claim Section.

RS:PRB. P. L. ANDREWS CORPORATION,

88 35th Street, Brooklyn, New York. GENTLEMEN: Yours of July 22d, in re certain space in one of the lofts known as east section of Building 4 received.

It is noted that you state that you are now free to vacate almost in its entirety this section. If you can vacate the entire extra space taken by you by August 1st, the department will be able to take it over from that date.

Kindly inform us at once of the exact amount of space and its location that will be thus vacated, and of the date when it is vacated. Very truly yours,

ROBERT STEWART,
Assistant Engineer, U. S. N. (Ret.),

Recorder, Special Board of Adjustment. VII. On September 9, 1918, Navy Order No. N-3255 was annulled by communication addressed by the Paymaster General of the Navy to the Bush Terminal Buildings Co., as follows:

Navy DEPARTMENT,
BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS,

Washington, D. C.

112-26 102–5

100-9 Bush TERMINAL BUILDINGS COMPANY,

100 Broad Street, New York, N. Y. Sirs: You are informed that, by direction of the Secretary of the Navy, Navy Order No. N-3255, dated 18 June, 1918, and served upon you 19 June, 1918which Navy order commandeered Bush Terminal Model Loft Buildings numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6 as specifically enumerated in the body of said commandeer order is hereby annulled.

It is expected that you will inform all those tenants of yours which were located in these buildings at the time of the serving of the commandeer that said commandeer has been annulled and that the contractual relations between those tenants and you are, in accordance with the terms of the various leases, the same as they were previous to the placing of this commandeer. Respectfully,

/s/ SAMUEL McGowan,

Paymaster General of the Navy. And on September 13, 1918, the plaintiff was informed of the annulment of said order in the following communication:

OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
THIRD NAVAL DISTRICT, 280 BROADWAY,

New York, N. Y., September 13, 1918. Material Department. Telephone Worth 8900.

GENTLEMEN: The Special Board of Appraisal, Bush Terminal Buildings 3-4-5 and 6, Navy Commandeer Order N-3255, has been instructed to inform you the above-named order een cancelled as of September 9, 1918.

Copy of a letter from the Paymaster General of the Navy to the Bush Terminal Building Company notifying them of the cancellation of the order, is enclosed herewith.

J. L. MURRIE,
Lieutenant, U. S. N. Ř. F.,

Member of Board and Acting Recorder. On September 25, 1918, the plaintiff company addressed to Lieutenant Murrie the following communication:

SEPTEMBER 25, 1918. Lieutenant L. L. MURRIE,

280 Broadway, New York. Dear Sir: Referring to our conversation following receipt of notice that commandeer order #3255 had been cancelled, we have found it impossible to change our plans for occupying premises leased by us under date of August 29th, therefore, it is our intention to vacate the space we now occupy in Bush Terminal Building No. 4 and the same will be vacated by us on or before the 30th instant as per copy of letter to Bush Terminal Company attached. Yours very truly,

P. L. ANDREWS CORPORATION. PLA.FA

VIII. Immediately upon the receipt by the plaintiff of notice as to order N-3255, which was received on June 19, 1918, plaintiff began inquiries looking to the procurement of another building or floor space within the city of New York suitable for the carrying on of its business. There then existed in the city of New York a shortage of buildings or floor space suitable for such purposes. On the 29th day of August, 1918, the plaintiff entered into a lease with one Victor E. Dessart for a one-story brick building then in course of construction in the Borough of Brooklyn for a term of 10 years, at an annual rental of $8,000. The construction of said building was altered to some extent to suit the purposes of plaintiff, and plaintiff began the work of dismantling its plant and made arrangements for the removal thereof, which was accomplished on or about the 30th of September, 1918, and on October 1, 1918, it vacated the premises theretofore occupied by it in the Bush Terminal Building and gave notice of such vacation to the defendant. The plaintiff's plant consisted largely of heavy machinery and fixtures which in their installation were necessarily bolted or otherwise fastened to the building, and the dismantling and removal thereof entailed a very considerable expense upon the plaintiff, in addition to which the dismantling and reassembling affected detrimentally for a time the efficiency of the machinery.

IX. The plaintiff acted promptly and as expeditiously as possible in respect to order No. N-3255 for the purpose of facilitating the vacating of the premises occupied by it and their surrender to the United States as soon as possible.

Said premises formerly occupied by the plaintiff in the Bush Terminal Building were never in fact occupied by the United States.

X. By reason of the dismantling of plaintiff's plant in the Bush Terminal Building and its removal and reassembling in its new location, leased as aforesaid, the plaintiff was put to an expense of $6,724.44, representing the expense incurred for the purposes stated and an expense for new motors procured in lieu of those formerly in use, made necessary by the fact that the electric current at the new building was different from that furnished at the old.

XI. The plaintiff paid no rent to the Bush Terminal Buildings Co. for the quarters occupied by it in the Bush Terminal Building for any time subsequent to the month of September, 1918, but for the months of October and November, 1918, the Bush Terminal Buildings Co. demanded of the plaintiff the sum of $1,121.26, for which, upon refusal of the plaintiff to pay, it has commenced suit.

XII. Plaintiff suffered a loss of $1,826.67, on account of certain overhead expenses during the period when by reason of such removal it was prevented from carrying on its regular business.

XIII. The reasonable rental value of the premises occupied by the plaintiff in the Bush Terminal Building, for which under its lease plaintiff was paying $0.35 per annum per square foot, was $0.50 per annum per square foot.

XIV. After the plaintiff was notified of the recision of Navy Order No. N-3255, it applied to Mr. Dessart for a release from the contract entered into by it with him on August 29, 1918, but release was refused except upon the payment of the sum of $8,000, which plaintiff declined to pay.

CONCLUSION Upon the facts found the court concludes and reports that the plaintiff has no claim either legal or equitable, in a juridical sense, against the United States, and that any compensation to it because of the facts recited rests in the discretion of Congress.

Filed May 11, 1925, and amended April 4, 1927.
A true copy:
Test this December 20, 1927.
(SEAL.)

F. C. KLEINSCHMIDT,
Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

[ocr errors]

EXECUTIVE ASSUMPTION OF THE

WAR-MAKING POWER

ARTICLE FROM THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LAW
REVIEW, MAY, 1927, ENTITLED “EXECUTIVE AS-
SUMPTION OF THE WAR-MAKING POWER." BY
ALBERT H. PUTNEY, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITU.
TIONAL LAW, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

LAW SCHOOL

PRESENTED BY MR. BLAINE

JANUARY 9, 1928.–Ordered to be printed

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON

« PreviousContinue »