Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 44 > Issue 5 (1946)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-WAR CONTRACT RENEGOTIATION ACT-INJUNCTION PROCEEDING-UNAUTHORIZED SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
A holder of war contracts with the federal government brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the Secretary of the Navy from withholding payments due under one contract to offset alleged excess profits received on others on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional, and to obtain a declaratory judgment with respect to his right to the disputed funds. The district court dismissed the bill. Held, since the essential allegations and the relief sought did not make it a case of threatened trespass against property but in effect constituted a suit designed to collect a debt alleged to be owed by the government, the United States had such an interest that it was an indispensable party and, therefore, the suit could not be maintained here without its consent. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Mine Safety Appliance Company v. Forrestal, (U.S. 1945) 66 S. Ct. 219, affirming (D.C.D.C., 1945) 59 F. Supp. 733.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-WAR CONTRACT RENEGOTIATION ACT-INJUNCTION PROCEEDING-UNAUTHORIZED SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol44/iss5/15