United States Ex Rel. Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. McCarl
Headline: Upheld denial of mandamus — Court allows Shipping Board or corporate officers, not the Comptroller General, to handle World War fleet contract claims, leaving contractors to pursue relief through other forums.
Holding: The Court affirmed dismissal of the mandamus petition and held that the Comptroller General need not decide claims from Fleet Corporation wartime contracts, leaving such disputes to the Shipping Board, corporate officers, or courts.
- Leaves Fleet Corporation contract credits to Shipping Board, corporate officers, or courts.
- Prevents contractors from forcing the Comptroller General to audit these wartime claims.
- Encourages resolution of claims through existing lawsuits or administrative channels.
Summary
Background
The dispute involves Skinner & Eddy Corporation, which performed shipbuilding work under contracts made in 1917–1919 with the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. Skinner & Eddy submitted claims to the Comptroller General seeking formal allowance so the claims could be used as credits if the United States sued on the contracts. The Comptroller General declined to act, saying those claims belonged to the Shipping Board. Meanwhile the Fleet Corporation assigned its assets to the United States and two suits arose in federal courts about the same contracts. Skinner & Eddy asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., for a writ of mandamus to force the Comptroller General to pass on the claims; that petition was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Reasoning
The central question was who must settle and allow credits for claims arising from Fleet Corporation contracts: the Comptroller General, the Shipping Board, the Fleet Corporation’s own officers, or the courts. The Court explained that the Fleet Corporation, though wholly owned by the Government, was organized as a private corporation and traditionally had its accounts and financial control handled by its own officers or by the Shipping Board when Congress so authorized. The Court said that if the contracts arose from powers delegated by the President, the Shipping Board would clearly settle them; otherwise the corporation’s own officers and administrative practice govern. The Court declined to decide several statutory technicalities and whether the Comptroller General’s refusal counted as a formal disallowance.
Real world impact
The Court affirmed the dismissal of the mandamus petition, leaving contractors to seek relief through the Shipping Board, the Fleet Corporation’s internal procedures, or in active lawsuits rather than by forcing the Comptroller General to audit or allow these wartime contract credits. This decision does not finally resolve all statutory questions and could be affected by later proceedings or different facts.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?