Summary

Pierce Butler Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. United States…

I can see no sufficient reason for awarding the value of a contract which perhaps might have been realized if the United States had not exercised their clear right to take over the partially completed vessel. No such claim was advanced by the petition; there was ample power in the Fleet Corporation to frustrate the building contract; and there seems no necessity for interpreting its action as accomplishing more. The Fleet Corporation evidently intended to requisition the vessel, and when claimant filed its petition in 1920 it does not seem to have thought the contract had been requisitioned.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. United States…

The United States contends that nothing whatever was requisitioned from the plaintiff, and that the judgment should be reversed and the claim dismissed unless claimant shall be held entitled to compensation for cancellation of its contract, and that, in such event, it should have judgment only for an amount sufficient with what already has been paid to it to make up 'the amount actually invested in the ship taken.' [3] As we hold that claimant's contract rights were expropriated, it is not necessary to consider what would be just compensation in case of mere cancellation of the contract.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. United States…

The order of August 3d, addressed only to the Shipbuilding Corporation, plainly recites that:
'All power-driven cargo-carrying and passenger ships above 2,500 tons d. w. capacity, under construction in your yard, and certain materials, machinery, equipment, outfit, and commitments for materials, machinery, equipment, and outfit necessary for their completion are hereby requisitioned by the United States.'
On that date the Shipbuilding Corporation had possession of the ship as well as title thereto.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature