United States v. Carver (278 U.S. 294)
Under Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, par. (b), 40 Stat. 182, authorizing the President to modify, suspend, cancel, or requisition contracts for building, production, or purchase of ships or material, Shipping Board, to which President delegated his authority, had no authority to cancel contract between owner and charterer for carriage of freight, so as to entitle owners to compensation for loss from cancellation.

Findings in suit for compensation, under Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 Stat. 182, that Australian officials notified owner of vessel that Shipping Board had decided vessel would be ordered to abandon charome ore charter and return to United States for cargo of wheat, and that owners, without waiting for such order, signed wheat charter, did not show that the Shipping Board or the Emergency Fleet Corporation in fact canceled the chrome ore charter.

Where owners of vessel, on being informed that Shipping Board had decided to order vessel to abandon its charter and carry a cargo of wheat, signed wheat charter with Food Administration Grain Corporation to prevent taking over of vessel by government, the Shipping Board did not requisition or take over the vessel, under Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, per. (e), 40 Stat. 182, so as to entitle owners to compensation for loss from abandonment of the existing charter.

Even if Shipping Board had ordered vessel to abandon charter and carry a cargo of wheat, this would not have been a placing of an order for the ship, within Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, par. (a), 40 Stat. 182, so as to entitle owners of vessel to compensation for loss from abandonment of the charter.

Where owners of vessel were notified that Shipping Board had decided to order vessel to abandon charter and carry a cargo of wheat, and to prevent requisition owners signed wheat charter, the Shipping Board did not requisition the first charter, within Act June 15, 1917, c. 29, par. (e), 40 Stat. 182, authorizing requisition of ships or charters, so as to entitle owners to compensation for their loss.

The Attorney General and Mr. Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Mr. Frank E. Scott, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision