[DOWNLOAD] "United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works Inc." by United States Court Of Appeals Second Circuit # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: United States v. Wissahickon Tool Works Inc.
- Author : United States Court Of Appeals Second Circuit
- Release Date : January 23, 1952
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
Four actions brought by the United States pursuant to the Renegotiation Act, § 403 of the Sixth Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.Appendix § 1191, have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. In these suits plaintiff seeks to recover allegedly excessive profits made under Government contracts by the four defendants, Wissahickon Tool Works, Inc., Roxboro Steel Company, Wilkes Barre Carriage Co., Inc., and West Pittston Iron Works, Inc., during their fiscal year ending July 31, 1943. After issue was joined, plaintiff moved to strike the defenses, off-sets, and counterclaims set up in the answers and for judgment on the pleadings. Three of the defendants moved to have James W. Johnson, then Collector of Internal Revenue for the Third District, made an additional party defendant as to some of the counterclaims. The district court denied the defense motions and plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings, but ordered most of the defenses and offsets and all of the counterclaims struck from the answers. D.C.S.D.N.Y., 84 F.Supp. 896. Plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment against all four defendants, who, in turn, submitted various cross-motions. These motions were heard by another judge, who denied defendants motions and granted summary judgment for plaintiff in an opinion filed on April 10, 1951, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 99 F.Supp. 331. On January 23, 1952, plaintiff noticed for settlement orders and judgments based on this decision; but on the settlement date, January 25, it was met with an order to show cause on February 1 on defendants motions for leave to serve supplemental answers and to reargue the motions originally heard and granted the previous year. The judge on February 1, 1952, having heard arguments, denied the motions and signed in each case the "Order and Judgment" as submitted by the plaintiff, embodying the mandate of the opinion of April 10, 1951, as well as the denial of the further motions. Defendants are appealing from these judgments and also complain of the adverse earlier rulings.