Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation v…

But all of the contracts were signed and sealed by the Fleet Corporation, which was referred to as a corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia and which promised to pay the stipulated price for the ships and to perform the other obligations of the contracts, in terms imposed on it. They contained no words purporting to bind the United States or in terms restricting the liability of the petitioner.
One acting as a private agent may be bound, notwithstanding his known agency, upon contracts which he executes in his own name.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation v…

Any other construction would nullify the saving clause of (b) (2) , for if the 'decision of the Board' as used in the proviso of (c) embraces settlements of all matters arising out of contracts which, by paragraph (b) (1) , it was directed to carry out and in the event that its decision is not accepted, the exclusive remedy is by suit against the United States, then none of the remedies accruing under such contracts and in terms saved by paragraph 2, were preserved.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation v…

But the jurisdiction was sustained on the ground that the Fleet Corporation was bound by its contract, even though it acted as an agency of the United States and so was subject to the suit upon it in the District Court. The court said (page 569 of 258 U.S., 42 S.C.t. 386, 389, 66 L. Ed. 762) : 'The whole frame of the instrument (the contract) seems to us plainly to recognize the Corporation as the immediate party to the contract. * * * If we are right in this, further reasoning seems to us unnecessary to show that there was jurisdiction of the suit.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature