From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Murphy-Cook Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 19, 1954
123 F. Supp. 806 (E.D. Pa. 1954)

Opinion

No. 16585.

July 19, 1954.

W. Wilson White, U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., G. Clinton Fogwell, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Lemuel B. Schofield, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.


I am of the opinion that the effect of the War Time Suspension of Limitations Act, as amended by the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 667, 41 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., was to suspend the running of the limitation, contained in the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.A. § 231 et seq., until three years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by the President, and that, therefore, the action, as set forth in the "second cause of action", was timely brought. It is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss the Government's claim that the six year limitation contained in the False Claims Act does not apply to actions brought by the United States but only to qui tam suits brought by an informer.

The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is, therefore, denied.


Summaries of

United States v. Murphy-Cook Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 19, 1954
123 F. Supp. 806 (E.D. Pa. 1954)
Case details for

United States v. Murphy-Cook Co.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v. MURPHY-COOK CO., Inc. et al

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 19, 1954

Citations

123 F. Supp. 806 (E.D. Pa. 1954)

Citing Cases

United States ex rel. Bergman v. Abbot Labs.

Moreover, very few civil cases from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involve the WSLA and none of those…

Dugan McNamara, Inc. v. United States, (1955)

However, on appeal that decision was reversed on other grounds, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 796. Two recent District…