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

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

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

Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States

No. 609

Argued March 3, 4, 1926

Decided April 12, 1926

271 U.S. 43

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. 271 U. S. 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. 271 U. S. 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. 271 U. S. 49.

4. Mutual promises of the parties are adequate consideration sustaining a compromise of a disputed contract. P. 271 U. S. 50.

60 Ct.Cls. 712 affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims.

Page 271 U. S. 44

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.