California. Page. § 14... 397 (B.) STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES. Constitution, Art. XIII, Page. 1923, Gen. Stats., § 3711.. 275 § 3713.. 275 3716.. 275 Mississippi. 3666..... 399 Constitution of 1890, § 207..... 87 Missouri. 1890, Act of Feb. 21... 1909, Rev. Stat., § 4770.. 317 1919, Rev. Stats., § 6283.. 441 6284.. 441 Constitution, Art. I..... 282 Civil Practice Act...... 214 Philippine Islands. Act No. 2339, § 79.. 91 Act No. 2430.... Remington's Comp. 90 90 210 1917, Stats., § 51.32..... 138 1919, Stats., §§ 1211 1235.... 138 1923, Stats., § 76.34..... 138 $4771.. 317 314 1853, Dec. 30, 10 Stat. 1031 (Gadsden Treaty)... 282 (D.) FOREIGN STATUTES. CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1927. UNITED STATES EX REL. SKINNER & EDDY CORPORATION v. McCARL, COMPTROLLER GENERAL. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 30. Argued April 14, 18, 1927.-Decided October 10, 1927. 1. Claims arising out of contracts with the Emergency Fleet Corporation are not within the jurisdiction of the Comptroller General. P. 4. 2. The Fleet Corporation is an entity distinct from the United States and from any of its departments or boards; and the audit and control of its financial transactions is, under the general rules of law and the administrative practice, committed to its own corporate officers except so far as control may be exerted by the Shipping Board. P. 11. 3. The power to settle and adjust claims arising from contracts made and cancelled by the Fleet Corporation under the power delegated by the President under the Acts of June 15, 1917, and April 22 and November 4, 1918, is conferred by § 2(c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, on the Shipping Board. P. 11. 4. The requirement of Rev. Stats., § 951, that in suits by the United States against individuals no claim for a credit shall be admitted unless it shall have been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury and by them disallowed, is satisfied when the claim is presented and disallowed by the officer who has power to allow the claim, although he is not a general accounting officer of the Government. P. 12. 8 F. (2d) 1011, affirmed. 83583°-28-1 1 Opinion of the Court. 275 U.S. CERTIORARI, 270 U. S. 626, to a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia which affirmed the Supreme Court of the District in dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus, which was sought by Skinner & Eddy in order to compel the Comptroller General to pass upon its claims against the Government, growing out of contracts with the Emergency Fleet Corporation. Mr. Louis Titus, with whom Mr. J. Barrett Carter was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Gardner P. Lloyd, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell was on the brief, for respondent. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in October, 1924. The relator, Skinner & Eddy Corporation, seeks to compel the Comptroller General to pass upon its claims against the Government. These arise under contracts made during the years 1917, 1918 and 1919 with the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. Most of the contracts refer to the corporation as "representing the United States." The claims were presented to the Comptroller General for allowance, because Skinner & Eddy wished to be in a position to use them as a credit, if the United States should, as was threatened, sue on the contracts. It deemed this course necessary, because § 951 of the Revised Statutes (United States Code, Title 28, § 774) provides: "In suits brought by the United States against individuals, no claim for a credit shall be admitted, upon trial, except such as appear to have been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury, for their examination, and to have been by them 1 disallowed Opinion of the Court. Compare United States v. Fisher Flouring Mills Co., 295 Fed. 691; 17 F. (2d) 232. The Comptroller General declines to consider the claims, asserting that he has neither the duty, nor the power to do so; and that the duty of passing upon them rests with the Shipping Board. In 1923, the Fleet Corporation assigned to the United States, all of its assets, including accounts against divers persons for the payment of money. Thus, the United States is the owner, either as principal or as assignee of the Fleet Corporation, of all the claims against Skinner & Eddy. Two actions arising out of these contracts are pow pending in the federal court for the Western District of Washington. One is a suit by Skinner & Eddy against the Fleet Corporation begun in 1923 in a state court of Washington and removed to the federal court. In that case, the defendant has moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the claim sued on is one against the United States.1 The other action is a suit by the United States against Skinner & Eddy, commenced in the federal court since this petition for a writ of mandamus was filed. The question whether the writ of mandamus should issue is presented by a demurrer to the plea and traverse which was interposed to the answer. The Supreme Court of the District sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition without opinion. Its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the District, 8 F. (2d) 1011. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 270 U. S. 636. The Government insists that the petition was properly dismissed, because claims arising out of contracts with the Fleet Corporation are not within the jurisdiction of the Comptroller General; and that even if they were, the 1 In 1923, Skinner & Eddy began still another suit, upon the same cause of action, against the United States in the Court of Claims. It was finally allowed to dismiss that suit without prejudice. See In re Skinner & Eddy Corporation, 265 U. S. 86. |