The Attorney General, and Mr. Charles A. Horsky, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. [306 U.S. 276, 277] Mr. O. Walker Taylor, of Boston, Mass., for respondent Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering Co.
Mr. Hayner N. Larson, of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent Jaffray and others.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In each of these causes counsel for the United States maintain the District Court was without jurisdiction to determine the issues. The Circuit Courts of Appeal ruled otherwise and approved judgments for respondents. The collectors who received the excess taxes in question were either dead or out of office when the proceedings to recover were commenced. The question of jurisdiction only is open for our consideration.
Section 145, Judicial Code1 empowers the Court of Claims to hear and determine claims against the United [306 U.S. 276, 278] States arising out of contract, express or implied. Prior to 1921 section 24(20) Judicial Code gave District Courts concurrent jurisdiction when the claim did not exceed Ten Thousand Dollars.