# Bannercraft Clothing Co. v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · June 25, 1975 · 518 F.2d 605

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8595322

## Case

- **Full name:** BANNERCRAFT CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** June 25, 1975
- **Citations:** 518 F.2d 605; 21 Cont. Cas. Fed. 84,022; 207 Ct. Cl. 199; 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 230
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Davis
- **Judges:** Bennett, Cowen, Davis, Kashiwa, Kttnzig, Kunzig, Nichols, Skelton
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8595322

## Opinion text

Davis, Judge,
concurring in the result:
This company did not attempt to file any sort of bond within the ten-day period (or a reasonable time thereafter), nor has it ever offered a monetary bond. In this respect the case seems to me to differ significantly from Manufacturers Service Co. v. United States, supra. The Renegotiation Act and our Rule 26 contemplate a monetary bond, not real-property collateral. Perhaps if plaintiff had tendered a timely temporary bond and then later sought to substitute the real-estate collateral, there could be room for the court, in its discretion, to accept the substitution. But plaintiff did not take that route and I agree that its only proffer fails to comply with the statute and the rule. On the jurisdictional issue I join the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8595322. Public record. Not legal advice.