“Congress did not, we think, wish to eat into the Government’s normal right of setoff against the assignor more than would be necessary to induce such monetary aid in [financing contracts].”
How later courts described this case
- “Congress did not, we think, wish to eat into the Government’s normal right of setoff against the assignor more than would be necessary to induce such monetary aid in [financing contracts].”
- One who pays another's debt to protect his own rights is ordinarily not a volunteer and may be subrogated to the creditor's rights
- “One who pays another’s debt to protect his own rights and interests is not ordinarily considered a volunteer.”
- Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Kunzig, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion of the en bane court to the extent that it conflicts with the decision of the original panel. I therefore concur in Judge Nichols’ dissent and adhere to my previous opinion. 210 Ct. Cl. 375 , 537 F. 2d 426 (1976).
In accordance with the opinion of the court, a stipulation of the parties, and a memorandum report of the trial judge, it was ordered on May 6,1977 that judgment for plaintiff be entered for $45,000.