source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    BOSTICK v. SOUTH CAROLINA et al.
    No. 647.
    Argued March 20, 1967.
    Decided March 27, 1967.

      Matthew J. Perry argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Charles E. Washington, Jr.

      Everett N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, and Randolph Murdaugh.

   Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is reversed. Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (1967).


text:
    COLONIAL REFRIGERATED TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. UNITED STATES et al.
    No. 894.
    Decided March 27, 1967.

      S. Eason Batch, for appellant.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Nahum Litt for the United States et al.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to. affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.


text:
    ROGERS et al. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER et al.
    No. 998.
    Decided March 27, 1967.

      Harry, L.,Arkin for appellants.

      Max P. Zall, Charles S. Rhyne, Brice W. Rhyne and Alfred J. Tighe, Jr,, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

■ The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


text:
    BERMAN v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS, CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.
    No. 1019.
    Decided March 27, 1967.
    Appellant pro se.

      J. Lee Rankin for appellees.

      Mason Hampton, Jr., for the National Information Bureau for Jewish Life, Inc., as amicus curiae, in support of appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    SHANNON v. SEQUEECHI, SHERIFF, et al.
    No. 1198,
    Mise.
    Decided March 27, 1967.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon- the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


text:
    CROSS et al. v. PALO ALTO-MOUNTAIN VIEW MUNICIPAL COURT et al.
    No. 1246,
    Mise.
    Decided March 27, 1967.
    Appellants pro se.

      Hugh Stewart Center for appellees Ebnother et al.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed forwant of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

The prayer for other relief is also denied.


text:
    MANGUS v. A. C. E. FREIGHT, INC., et al.
    No. 1260,
    Mise.
    Decided March 27, 1967.

      Louis A. Dirker for petitioner.

      Bruce B. Laybourne for respondent Freight Drivers, Dockworkers & Helpers, Local Union No. 24.
   Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are.granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for further consideration in light of Vaca v. Sipes, ante, p. 171.


text:
    CONNOR et al. v. JOHNSON, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, et al.

    No. 999.
    Decided March 27, 1967.

      Carl Bachlin, Marvin M. Karpatkin, Arthur Kinoy, Melvin L. Wulf, Alvin J. Bronstein and Robert B. McKay for appellants.

      Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, and Martin R. McLendon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down for argument.


author: , Mr. Justice Harlan

text:
    HONDA et al. v. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL.
    No. 164.
    Argued February 14, 1967.
    Decided April 10, 1967.

      Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were John Silard, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand and Benjamin V. Cohen.

      Richard A. Posner argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General '‘Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders, David L. Rose and Richard S. Salzman.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Charles A. O’Brien, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Charles W. Rumph, Deputy Attorney. General, filed a brief for the State of California, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
   , Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the Court.

' Petitioners are 4,100 United States citizens or residents of Japanese descent seeking to recover funds vested under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 40 Stat. 411, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1 et seq. The District Court dismissed their suit against the Attorney General as barred by limitations, and the Court of Appeals.affirmed by a divided vote. 123 U. S. App. D: C. 12, 356 F. 2d 351. We granted certiorari because of the importance and unusual character of the questions involved, affecting the proper application of this wartime statute. 385 U. S. 917.

Both as the case was treated by the lower courts and as it was largely argued here, the limitations issue has been thought' to turn on whether the Government is estopped from asserting the 60-day time bar provided for actions of this kind by § 34 (f) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. We conclude, however, that “estoppel” is not the controlling issue, but that for reasons discussed in this opinion the period of limitations was tolled, requiring reversal of the judgment below.

I.

Upon the outbreak of hostilities with Japan, the United States, on December 7, 1941, acting under the Trading with the Enemy Act, seized the American assets of businesses owned by Japanesé nationals, among such property being the assets of the Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd. . The assets of the bank were liquidated, and in 1943 were vested in the Alien Property Custodian; see Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Sparling, 93 Cal. App. 2d 768, 770-771, 209 P. 2d 968, 969-970. Petitioners were among the approximately 7,500 depositors of the bank holding “yen certificates,” who submitted timely claims, many being filed as early as 1946, under -§ 34 of the Act seeking recovery of their deposits.

Section 34 of the Act was enacted in 1946 as a legislative' response to this Court’s decision in Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404, which allowed nonenemy creditors of former owners of vested property to bring suit under a World War I statute, and recover directly' out of vested assets. The Alien Property Custodian feared that allowance of such suits might lead.to inequitable results, in that creditors who brought suit immediately might exhaust the assets at the expense of other, equally valid, claims. The Custodian urged, and the Congress agreed, that an approach on the lines of the.Bankruptcy Act was a fairer method of distributing such assets. See H. R. Rep. No. 2398, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 10, 14 (1946); S. Rep, No. 1839, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 4, 8 (1946). As in bankruptcy law, the new Act required the filing of a debt claim with the Custodian within a specified period, § 34(b).

Approximately 7,500 yen certificate holders3 including petitioners, immediately complied with this provision and submitted photostatic copies of their respective certificates. In the course of processing the claims pursuant to § 34 (f) a question arose as to the redemption value of the certificates both for depositors of the Yokohama Specie Bank and for those of another bank, the Sumi-tomo Bank, holding similar certificates. An administrative determination was sought in a proceeding brought in the name of one of the Yokohama Bank depositors, Kunio Abe, Claim No. 55507. Abe, acting for all yen certificate holders, took the view that since these deposits had been made in American dollars, and the certificates were allegedly redeemable in dollars at any time upon demand at American branches of the bank, they should be treated as dollar debts at the amount of their value when seized in 1941, at a rate of about 4.3 yen to the dollar. The Attorney General, however, characterized the debts as yen debts, and following the rule of Deutsche Bank v. Humphrey, 272 U. S. 517, and Zimmermann v. Sutherland, 274 U. S. 253, held that the proper measure of recovery would be at the postwar conversion rate of 361.55 yen to the dollar, or less than 2% of the prewar rate. It is noteworthy that throughout this period the Yokohama Bank’s successor in Japan, the Bank of Tokyo, Ltd., was willing to redeem these certificates at the postwar rate. Petitioners, at any time, could therefore have received from the Japanese bank the amount the Government asserted would eventually be obtained from the vested assets.

At the conclusion of the administrative process, in 1958-1959, the Chief of the Claims Section wrote to each of the depositors who had filed a claim, including petitioners, advising that “The Director of this Office decided on-November 13, 1957, In the Matter of Kunio Abe, et al., Claim No. 55507, Docket No. 55 D 72, which decision the Attorney General has declined to review, that yen certificates of deposit issued by the Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd. ... are obligations payable in yen in Japan .. .,” and therefore that the postwar rate of 361.55 yen to the dollar would be used in redeeming certificates from the vested assets. Claimants were told to -submit their originál certificates within 45 days. However, the letter continued, “Payment of your claim . . . will not be made immediately.” The letter informed the claimant that a full schedule of claimants would be made, § 34 (f), and that after its issuance aggrieved certificate holders might file suit in the United States District' Court for the District of Columbia for judicial review. “Under the circumstances,” the letter continued, “you may wish to utilize the funds in Japan, rather than await settlement by this Office. If this is done, the Notice of Claim filed with this Office should be canceled by signing and mailing the enclosed Notice of Cancellation of Claim card.”

Petitioners characterize this letter as “confusing” and “insulting.” We. think the opprobrium which is sought to be fastened on the letter is undeserved and consider it more accurate and fairer to say. that although its instructions were complex, the letter was written in a manner designed reasonably to apprise, a layman of the choices before him. However, on the particular facts of this case and given the empirical evidence available, it is quite understandable that of the 7,500 initial claimants, only 1,817 responded affirmatively by sending in their certificates, and less than 1,600 canceled their claims and sought immediate recovery in Japan. The remainder, a majority of all who had claims, petitioners in this case, did nothing.

The reasons for their inaction are quite apparent, and, it can reasonably be argued, should have been so to the Government: the letter indicated that despite as long as 12 years of waiting after the original submission of their claims, supported by copies of their certificates, they could expect to receive less than 2% of their basic deposits measured in prewar dollar terms, and that even this amount would not be forthcoming immediately, but only after issuance of a schedule (an additional interval, it turned out, of three years) plus possible judicial review.- Claimants would clearly be better off getting repayment immediately from the Japanese bank itself. This recourse, suggested by the letter itself, was at the same time understandably advantageous to the Government as well: American citizens or residents would obtain relief, but from a foreign source, thus freeing more of the vested assets for distribution to remaining claimants. It is thus understandable that the Government did nothing to ascertain why a majority of the. 7,600 claimants had responded in no way to its letter.

■ In affidavits submitted to the District Court, and not contradicted on the motion to dismiss the complaint, various other reasons were asserted for the failure of these petitioners to respond. Petitioner Jiro Kai asserted:

“I did receive a letter from the Office of Alien Property offering me about 30⅜ for my claim. I think I recall being asked to send in my original certificate by registered mail to receive this amount. For me to have done this would have cost more than I was being offered.[] I had heard from others that many more persons had claims similar to mine and I understood that they were all being processed together. I saw in the Japanese newspaper that a court suit was or would be filed seeking to obtain for the yen claimants the proper amount for their claims. I believed, therefore, I would be protected.”

Other affidavits gave similar reasons. These are summarized best in an affidavit of Mr. Katsuma Mukaeda, president of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Southern, California:

“Many of the Yokohama Specie Bank yen deposit certificate holders were old people who could not read English and could not understand the communications they received from the Office of Alien Property; many of them had to rely upon other persons who themselves were not able to understand the letters; most of the claimants had never talked to a lawyer about their cases and there was a general feeling in the community that all of the claims were -going to be treated alike, both the Sumitomo Bank claimants and the Yokohama Specie Bank claimants; there was knowledge in the community that a law suit had been filed in Washington and it was understood and believed that the outcome of that law suit would determine how much money the claimants received and that it- would apply to all claimants not just some; most of the claimants had had experience with or had heard about the Japanese Evacuation Claims program (50 U. S. C. Appx. 1981-1987)[] and many of them knew generally that under that program, deadlines had been extended and even that the law itself had been changed to include persons who originally were not eligible, to be eligible for repayment of some of their losses due-to the Japanese- evacuation program, and that persons who previously had been denied payment, later were paid; . . . since the original certificates of deposit were the claimants’ only direct evidence of their claim, many of the claimants were reluctant to part with this evidence, especially at a time when the Government was recognizing their claims at less than 2% of their face value, to say nothing of accumulated interest over the years; moreover, many of them, felt that to send in their certificates at that time would be taken as agreeing to accept this very small sum in full settlement and they did not want to do that; there were others whose claims were so small that to send in the originals at the figure the ■ Government was offering would net them no return or a very small amount; as individuals, even those claimants who did not have very small claims could not afford to hire an individual lawyer in Washington or to file their- own suit but had to rely on what was being done generally and many of them believed that in the end their Government would not try to keep their money but would return it.”

The claims of these 4,100 claimants were dismissed when they did not respond within the 45-day administrative limit, pursuant to 8 CFR § 502:25 (g), 21 Fed. .Reg. 1582. Petitioners were notified that their claims were disallowed as abandoned, and told that further proceedings were governed by § 34 (f), the provision requiring a final schedule of claimants and providing for judicial review. In May 1961 a final schedule was prepared and sent to all claimants, including petitioners. Petitioners’ claims were not included in the schedule, but they were informed that “Pursuant to Section 34 (f) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, any claimant considering himself aggrieved by this Final Schedule may, within sixty (60) days from the date of the mailing of the Schedule, file in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a complaint for review of this Schedule . . . .”

Such á suit was brought to challenge the proper rate of exchange. It was brought by Mr. Kunio Abe, the same person who had challenged the administrative ruling and whose case was cited by the Government in its letters to petitioners as dispositive of their cases. Abe v. Kennedy, C. A. No. 2529-61, D. D. C., was held in abeyance in the District Court pending a determination of the identical issue raised in relation to yen certificates issued by the Sumitomo Bank. The District Court upheld the Attorney General’s determination, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, Aratani v. Kennedy, 115 U. S. App. D. C. 97, 317 F. 2d 161, 323 F. 2d 427., After this Court granted certiorari in Aratani, 375 U. S. 877, the Attorney General entered into a compromise settlement with the plaintiffs in Aratani and Abe, in the latter case approximately at the prewar rate without interest. Petitioners here were not included in the class represented by Abe, for his complaint was framed to represent only the class of those claimants listed in the schedule rather than all outstanding claimants. Petitioners therefore filed this suit upon final disposition of the Abe litigation, and long before the dismissal of certiorari in Aratani, asking for similar treatment. The Attorney General denied their claims because petitioners were not included in the class represented in the Abe suit, and because they had not filed their suit within 60 days after mailing, of the schedule as required by § 34 (f).

II.

Quite apart from any- question of governmental estop-pel respecting assertion of the statute of limitations, a contention that is sought to be predicated on the foregoing train of events and circumstances, we consider that the limitations period was in any event tolled during the pendency of the Abe litigation, and that petitioners’ right to bring their suit was not foreclosed. An analysis of the statutory scheme as devised by Congress persuades us,' in the context of this factual setting, that this is the result most consistent with the legislative purpose of this Act.

The statutory system embodied in § 34 was intended to provide a method for the fair and equitable distribution of vested enemy assets to American residents. The basic model for the statute was the Federal Bankruptcy Act, a concept revealed in the legislative record by expressions of the Custodian and of those members of Congress principally responsible for the legislation. The 60-day limitation on suits was designed to further this end — to aid claimants by expediting a final distribution — and not primarily as a shield for the Government.

The Bankruptcy Act, the pattern for this legislation, ■presents a compelling analogy, pointing the way to the decision which we make in this case. Section 57n, 11 U. S. C. § 93 (n), requires notification of claims within six months after the first date set for the first meeting of creditors. Those who fail to file timely claims do not, however, lose all their rights; rather after all duly allowed and properly filed claims have been paid in full, “claims not filed within the time hereinabove prescribed may nevertheless be filed within such time as the court may fix or for cause shown extend and, if duly proved, shall be allowed against any surplus remaining in such case.”

It is true that this equitable principle of the Bankruptcy Act was specifically authorized by a 1938 amendment which was “designed to remedy the inequity of returning property to the bankrupt as long as there are creditors, however tardy, whose claims have not been satisfied even in part.” 3 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 57.33, at 398. But it is noteworthy that bankruptcy courts in the exercise of their general equity power had already reached this result long before the principle was enacted into law. As one nisi prius bankruptcy court stated in In re Lenox, 2 F. 2d 92, in 1924, “This [the statute of limitations] is a provision for the benefit of creditors, not for the benefit of the bankrupt. ... In the present case, the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act have been complied with, and those who complied with all its provisions have been paid in full. But the fact remains that the petitioner'who had reduced his claim to judgment, the existence and validity of which the bankrupt recognized in his schedules and does not now deny, has received nothing. A fund remains in the hands of the trustee.” Id., at 93. The equitable solution, the court held, was to allow the claim, even though untimely. In Williams v. Rice, 30 F. 2d 814, an estate, presumably without assets, was reopened when new assets were discovered. The question was again whether creditors who had not filed timely claims, should - be allowed to prove their claims. Noting that the time limitation- “is intended primarily to require creditors to prove their claims promptly, in order that the estate may be closed without undue delay/’ id,, at 815, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that in the absence of negligent failure to file, claimants in such a case could file after the time limitation. See also In re Pierson, 174 F. 160, where the court allowed the reopening of the estate and the filing of claims past the statutory period when new assets were discovered. But see In re Silk, 55 F. 2d 917, reaching the opposite result.

Another, though less precise, analogy in the bankruptcy area can be drawn from Nassau Works v. Brightwood Co., 265 U. S. 269. The issue there was whether a creditor whose claim was not proved within the statutory period established for creditors in bankruptcy. could nevertheless participate in a composition in bankruptcy. Mr. Justice Brandéis, writing for a unanimous Court, analyzed the statute in terms of its purpose and the various interests involved. From the viewpoint of the other creditors, he found, “neither the amount which a creditor receives, nor the time when he receives it, can be affected by the amount of others’ claims, or by the time of proof, or by their failure to prove. . . . Nor can the time of proof of claims, as distinguished from their allowance, be of legitimate interest to the bankrupt. ... No reason is suggested why Congress should have wished to bar creditors from participation in the benefits of a composition merely because their claims were not proved within a year of the adjudication. Failure to prove within the year does not harm the bankrupt. Why should he gain thereby? And why should the creditor be penalized by a total loss of his claim?” 265 U. S., at 272-273.

These factors can be applied to the present case with equal force. What purpose does the strict 60-day limitation serve, except as a method of expediting the distribution of vested assets to creditors? But no other creditors are here objecting, for none exist: they have all compromised their claims and yet a surplus remains in the account. The Government itself has.no real interest in this fund, for it neither comes out of the common weal nor will any surplus ihure to the Treasury. The Attorney General is a mere stakeholder, a custodian in the true sense of the word. The only persons who might eventually benefit from the surplus are those general beneficiaries of the War Claims Fund into which any surplus is deposited. But the 60-day rule can hardly be deemed a device for augmenting this general fund at the expense of recognized creditors, especially in the face of repeated and uncontested expressions of congressional intent to facilitate and expand the rights of American creditors having an interest in these assets.

III.

The foregoing considerations are especially persuasive here when the reason for petitioners’ delay in bringing suit is recalled. It was generally known in the Japanese community that a class suit, the Abe case, had been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint in that suit outlined the history of the controversy over the proper rate of exchange and it specifically noted that this question was “[t]he sole issue on this Complaint for review . .. .” An examination of the complaint, on file at the District Court but presumably not readily available to petitioners who lived on the West Coast, reveals that the plaintiffs included in the class action were defined as those listed on the final schedule rather than all those who filed valid claims. But from a practical standpoint, this definition, which legally excluded these petitioners, made no differentiation between the total group of certificate holders in any material respect.. The legal issue raised in the complaint dealt only with the exchange rate; the administrative record filed with the District Court was that of the Abe claim which did apply — at the administrative level — to petitioners; the named plaintiff was also Kunio Abe whose case was cited by the Government as dispositive of petitioners’ claims; no action was in any event taken on the complaint which was held in suspense pending, determination of the same legal issue in the Aratani casé and then dismissed upon settlement with the Abe suit claimants. Since petitionérs filed their claim immediately upon settlement of the Abe case, there can be no claim that the course of action they took in any way interfered with the speed or manner in which this litigation was conducted.

. The only arguable difference it might have made had petitioners filed their action immediately upon publication of the schedule is that the Government’s willingness to settle the case might have been dampened because the larger number of plaintiffs would have made settlement more costly to the total fund. Upon examination, however, even this possibility should be discounted when it is recalled that these are not in any real sense government funds, but rather vested assets of an enemy debtor which will be distributed to another class of war victims if petitioners’ claims are barred. The Government has no interest in the fund except to enforce the primary congressional mandate that bona fide creditors recover their due. Since the amount in the fund adequately covers a full settlement with all these claimants at the Abe rate, exhausting the surplus should not have played a part in the Government’s decision to settle with the Abe claimants.

For these reasons we think the statutory purpose is best served by invoking the equitable doctrine of tolling to preserve petitioners’ action in which they seek payment on the same basis as that accorded the claimants in Abe.

IV.

In light of these circumstances we find the Attorney General’s arguments unpersuasive. He argues primarily that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply in this case to prevent assertion of the statute of limitations. We do not reach the estoppel- issue, because we hold that the statutory scheme itself requires tolling the limitation period during the pendency of the Abe litigation. In this respect, the Government contends that because this suit is, at least formally, one against the sovereign, see Banco Mexicano v. Deutsche Bank, 263 U. S. 591, the statute of limitations may not be tolled without' express congressional consent. It is well settled, of course, that the Government is ordinarily immune from suit, and that it may define the conditions under which it will permit such actions. E. g., Kendall v. United States, 107 U. S. 123; United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584. It is also true that in many cases this Court has read procedural rules embodied in statutes waiving immunity strictly, with an eye to effectuating á restrictive legislative purpose when Congress relinquishes sovereign immunity. E. g., Kendall v. United States, supra; United States v. Sherwood, supra; Soriano v. United States, 352 U. S. 270; compare Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, post, p. 503.

This case is, however, wholly different from those cases on which the Government primarily relies, where the public treasury was directly affected. Here Congress established a method for returning seized enemy assets to United States creditors, assets that were never contemplated as finding their way permanently into the public fisc. As the House and Senate-Reports on this statute declare, “The Custodian has emphasized to the committee that he is anxious to satisfy the. proper claims of creditors and the committee concur in the view that there exists a strong moral obligation to satisfy them inasmuch as, but for the vesting of their debtors’ property, they would presumably have been able to pursue ordinary remedies against the debtors.” H. R. Rep. No. 2398, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1946); S. Rep. No. 1839, 79th Cong., 2d Sees., 3-4 (1946). We consider it much more consistent with the overall congressional purpose to apply a traditional equitable tolling principle, aptly suited to the particular facts of this case and nowhere eschewed by Congress, to preserve petitioners’ cause of action. Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424; cf. Midstate Horticultural Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 320 U. S. 356, 360.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the dismissal of this action is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the decision of this case.

      This suit was originally filed against Robert F. Kennedy, then Attorney General. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach was substituted as statutory defendant in the District Court, and Ramsey Clark, the present Attorney General, succeeded him as respondent here by operation of law. Sup. Ct. Rule 48 (3).

       The certificates expressed their value in terms of yen, and bore the following statement, in both Japanese and English:
      “This is to certify that the sum of yen -.has been submitted to our Head Office, Yokohama, to be placed in Fixed Deposit there in your name at — percent, per annum for — months, maturing -, subject to the conditions on the back hereof.
      ■ “Both principal and interest are payable, when due, at our aforesaid Head' Office, Yokohama, upon surrender of this Certificate, properly endorsed and/or sealed.”

       Section 9 (a.) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U. S. C. App. §9 (a).

       Section 34 (a) limits allowable debt claims only to “those of citizens of the United States or of the Philippine Islands; those of corporations organized under the laws of the United States or any State, Territory, or possession thereof, or the District of Columbia , or the Philippine Islands; those of other natural persons who are and have been since the beginning of the war residents of the United States and who have not during the war been interned or paroled pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act; and those acquired by the Custodian.”

       The Attorney General assumed the duties of the Custodian in 1946 by Executive Order No. 9788, 11 Fed. Reg. 11981.

       Counsel for petitioners have supplied us with the following information as to the range in amounts of the claims involved in this litigation: “Of the 1,120 Honda claimants who have . . . retained [our associated California counsel] ... to the present date, the highest is for 120,000 yen — about $30,000 at the Abe ratio [or about' $332 at the. Government’s original rate] — and the- lowest claim is for 50 yen, or about $12 [about 14⅜⅝ at the lower rate]. Among all 4,100 petitioners the largest debt claimant of which we are aware chose other counsel, and his claim was for 246,000 yen (about $60,000) [about $680 at the lower rate] ....
      “The average claim among the 1,120 retainer claimants in Honda is for about $2,000 [at the Abe rate], and the mean considerably lower; the average among all 4,100 petitioners is necessarily more modest still, because it includes the 2,980 claimants who have not even sought representation by counsel in this suit, presumably because of the very small amounts of their claims . . . .”

       This legislation, enacted in 1948,- authorizes the Attorney General to make awards in amounts not to exceed $100,000 “on any claim by a person of Japanese ancestry against the United Statés arising on or after December 7, 1941, . that is ... a reasonable and natural consequence of the evacuation or exclusion of such person by the appropriate military commander from a military area in Arizona, California, Oregon,, or Washington; or from the Territory of Alaska, or the Territory of Hawaii, under authority of Executive Order . . . 70 Stat. 513, 50 U. S. C. App. §1981.

       The regulation provides: “A claim shall be deemed abandoned when after request to do so the claimant has not furnished relevant information in support of his claim, or where by virtue of his failure to respond to inquiries regarding the claim it appears that he does not wish to pursue it further.” Neither in his motion to dismiss the complaint in the District Court, nor on review in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, has the Attorney General advanced the argument that failure to comply with this administrative regulation is by itself an independent reason for dismissing this suit. It suffices to say here that such an argument would be open to attack on lines similar to those we hold require tolling the statute of limitations.

       The claimants in Aratani recovered considerably less than those in Abe because the amounts of their claims exceeded the vested assets of the Sumitomo Bank. 228 F. Supp. 706, 708.

       The District Court approved the settlements in both Aratani and Abe on March 18,4964, 228 F. Supp. 706, and entered its final, order on May 18, 1964. The present suit was filed May 19, 1964. The writ of certiorari in Aratani was dismissed on March -9, 1965, 380 U. S. 938, upon stipulation of counsel that the case had been settled.

       'At the committee hearings on this section, the following dialogue occurred between the Chairman, Congressman Celler of New York, and the Custodian, Mr. Markham:
      “Mr. Markham. . ’. . We propose that the law be changed so that the man could file his claim, but he would be paid on a ratable basis, if there is not enough money for everybody, and that we should have a marshaling of assets and a marshaling of debts, so that everybody would be treated alike and would not depend upon the time when they brought the' suit or the order in which the suits were brought.

      “Mr. Celler. But you want to be sure that you don’t get into a situation where one creditor can fritter away all the assets of an enterprise, and you want to apply them under the principle now applied in the Bankruptcy Act, give each creditor an equitable share in the assets?
      “Mr. Markham. That is the way I want it to be done. That is what I want to- do.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 5089, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 17 (1946). See also, id., at 7, 11-13, 113-114.
      Congressman Celler used the same reference when he introduced the bill to the House: “The.bill before us provides that the Alien Property Custodian takes the property and sells it and divides the proceeds equitably among all creditors as pari passu, in bankruptcy.” 92 Cong. Rec. 10217 (1946). And see H. R. Rep. No. 2398, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., TO, 14 (1946); S. Rep. No. 1839, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 4, 8 (1946). . r

       Under the War Claims Act of 1948, undistributed assets of enemy property are transferred to a War Claims Fund for distribution to United States citizens who suffered losses Caused by enemy military operations during World War II. 62 St-at. 1246-1247, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. §§ 39, 2012. That Act also declares that no vested property be returned to the former German or Japanese owners as had been the case with some assets after World War I. § 39 (a). See H. R. Rep. No. 976, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3 (1947); ' II. R. Rep. No. 2439, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948); S. Rep. No. 1742, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948).

       See 'references cited in n. 11, supra. There is nothing in the legislative history of the 1946 Act indicating that Congress had the interests of those who were in effect “remainder beneficiaries” in mind when imposing the procedures of § 34. • It is further noteworthy that in 1953 the Congress refused to enact legislation, supported by the Government, that would have had the effect of wiping out entirely debt claims payable in foreign currency, the Yokohama Bank certificates being the largest group of such debts. See S. Rep. No. .616, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. (1953); 99 Cong. Rec. 7408-7409 (1953)>


author: Mr. Justice White

text:
    CROWN COAT FRONT CO., INC. v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 371.
    Argued February 13-14, 1967.
    Decided April 10, 1967.

      Edwin J. McDermott, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

      David L. Rose argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders and Richard A. Posner.

      Thomas Kiernan filed a brief, as amicus curiae.

   Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.,

The standard disputes clause in government contracts requires that “any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this contract,” not disposed of by agreement, shall be decided by the contracting officer, with the right of appeal within 30 days to the depártment head or his representative (normally a board of contract appeals) whose decision shall be final “unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith.” The “arising under” claims subject to final administrative determination are those claims asserted under other clauses of the contract calling for equitable adjustment of the purchase price or extensions of time upon the occurrence of certain events. One of these clauses is the so-called “changes” clause which permits the contracting officer to make changes within the scope of the contract, provides that if any change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for the performance of, the work, “an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract price or delivery schedule,” and states that failure to agree upon an adjustment shall be a question of fact within the meaning of the disputes clause.

This case involves a claim for an equitable adjustment, asserted under the changes clause and rejected by the contracting officer and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The contractor brought suit in the District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1346 alleging that the decision of the Board was arbitrary, capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. The District Court dismissed the case as barred by 28 U. S. ;C. § 2401 (a) which provides that “Every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues . . . 'The principal question here is whether the “right of action” with respect to a claim within the disputes clause first accrues at the time of the final administrative action or at an earlier date.

The facts are quite simple. On May 14, 1956, petitioner contracted with the United States to furnish a spécified number of canteen covers which were to be lined with mildew-resistant felt of certain specifications.' The Government, which was authorized to inspect materials to be used under the contract, tested and rejected certain samples of felt purchased- by petitioner because they allegedly did not contain the contract quantities of mildew inhibitors. Petitioner agreed to a price reduction, however, and was permitted to complete the contract. Final delivery, originally scheduled for October 11, 1956, was made on December 14, 1956. Allegedly, in March 1959, petitioner' first, discovered the nature of the tests which the United States had performed on the felt. Claiming that the use of such tests was not within the contemplation of the contract and constituted a change in contract specifications, petitioner filed a claim with the contracting officer in October 1961, demanding an equitable adjustment in the contract price in the form of a refund of the price reduction and compensation for increased costs occasioned by substantial delay resulting from the Government's rejection of the felt samples. The contracting officer denied the claim. On February 28, 1963/ the Board of Contract Appeals affirmed the contracting officer's decision. On July 31, 1963, more than six years after 'petitioner had completed performance of the contract, petitioner brought suit in the District Court alleging that the. Board’s decision was capricious, arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence and that it was entitled to. an equitable adjustment as provided ill the contract. The United States, among other things, denied that the claim was within the disputes clause and asserted that the suit was time-barred by § 2401 (a). Without deciding whether the claim arose under the contract within the meaning of the disputes clause, the Dis- ■ trict Court dismissed the suit as barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed in a five-to-four decision. 363 F. 2d 407. Relying an McMahon v. United States, 342 U. S. 25, and its own decision in States Marine Corp. of Delaware v. United States, 283 F. 2d 776, which arose under the . Suits in Admiralty Act, the majority below concluded that the right of action first accrued no later than December 14, 1956, the date of the final delivery of the disputed canteen covers, and was therefore time-barred by § 2401 (a). The court disagreed with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Northern Metal Co. v. United States, 350 F. 2d 833, which, like States Marine, supra, involved the Suits in Admiralty Act. 41 Stat. 525, as amended. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit •had agreed with States Marine as to when the time bar begins to run but had held that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the administrative proceedings. Because of this apparent conflict, we granted certiorari, 385 U. S. 811. We reverse.

Since the decision below, the Court of Claims has decided Nager Electric Co., Inc. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 368 F. 2d 847, a unanimous decision by that court supported by an exhaustive opinion by JudgeJDavis dealing with the application of the “first accrual” language of 28 U. S. C. § 2501 to both breach and disputes clause - claims under the typical government contract. The con-' elusion of the Court of Claims was that it would adhere to what it considered to be its long-standing rule: (1) when administrative proceedings with respect to a ^contractor’s claim subject to the disputes clause extend beyond the completion of the contract, his right of action first accrues when the administrative action is final, and not before, •and (2) when the contractor has breach claims as well as disputes clause claims the statute begins to run on breach claims as well only at the conclusion of administrative action on the claims arising under the contract. As will be evident below, we . do not reach the question of breach claims in this case. But with respect to claims arising under the contract, such as one asserted under the changes clause, we agree with the Court of Claims and essentially for the reasons which that court articulated.

1. We start with the obvious: Section 2401 (a) provides a time limit upon bringing civil actions against thedjnited States. The' “civil action”, referred to is a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. ‘ Cf. Unexcelled Chemical Corp. v. United States, 345 U. S. 59. Such a civil suit is seemingly, barred if the right-to bring it first accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the suit. Our initial inquiry is, therefore, when the right of the contractor in this case to bring suit in the District Court first accrued. In our opinion, if its claim arose under thie contract, it first accrued at the time of the final decision of the Armed Services Board. of Contract Appeals, that is, upon the completion of the administrative proceedings contemplated and required by the' provisions of the contract.

With respect to claims arising under the typical government contract, the contractor has agreed in effect to convert what otherwise might be claims for breach of contract into claims for equitable adjustment. The changes clause, for example, permits the Government to make changes in contract specifications. Such changes are not breaches of contract. They do give rise to claims for equitable adjustments which the Government agrees to make, if the cost of performance is increased or the time for performance changed. But whether and to what extent an adjustment is required are questions to be answered by the methods provided in the contract itself. The contractor must present his claim to the contracting officer, whose decision is final unless appealed for final action by the department head or his representative,, here the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Until that Board has acted, the contractor’s claim is not subject to adjudication in the courts. Until then, he has only the right to have the existence and extent of his claimed adjustment determined by the administrative process agreed upon. But, as we have said, the “right of action” of which § 2401 (a) speaks is not the right to administrative action but the right to file a civil action in the courts against the United States. Under the contract we have here, the contractor’s claim was subject only to administrative, not judicial, determination in the first instance, with the right to resort to the courts only upon the making of that administrative determination.

It is now crystal clear thát the contractor must seek the relief provided for under the contract or be barred from any relief in the courts. In United States v. Holpuch Co., 328 U. S. 234, the question was whether a contractor’s failure to exhaust the administrative appeal provisions of a government construction contract bars him from-bringing suit in the Court of Claims to recover damages. The Court held that it did. According to the Court,, the disputes clause

“is a clear, unambiguous provision applicable at all times and binding on all parties to the contract. No court is justified in disregarding its letter or spirit.... It creates a mechanism whereby adjustments may be made and errors ..corrected on an administrative level, thereby permitting the Government to mitigate or avoid large damage claims that might otherwise be created. United States v. Blair, 321 U. S. 730, 735. This mechanism, moreover, is exclusive in nature. Solely through its operation may claims be made and adjudicated as to matters arising under the contract. . . . And in the absence of some clear evidence that the appeal procedure is inadequate or unavailable, that procedure must be pursued and exhausted, before a con tractor, can be heard to complain in a court.” 328 U. S. 234, 239-240.

See also United States v. Blair, 321 U. S. 730, and United States v. Callahan Walker Co., 317 U. S. 56, 61, where the disputes clause procedures are described ag the “only avenue for relief.”

2. .Even when the contractual scheme has run its course and the contractor is free to file his suit ip court, he is not entitled to demand a de novo determination of his claim for an equitable adjustment. The evidence in support of his case must have been presented administratively and the record there made will be the record before the reviewing court. United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709; United States v. Utah Construction Co., 384 U. S. 394. The court performs principally a reviewing function* Only if it is alleged, and proved that the administrative determination was arbitrary, capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence may the court refuse to honor it. This much is clear not only from the disputes clause itself but from the Wunderlich Act. In that statute, entitled “An Act to permit review . . . ,” 68 Stat. 81, Congress widened the scope of judicial review but. at the same time recognized the finality of the administrative decision absent the specified grounds for setting it aside. The focus of the court action is the validity' of the administrative decision. . Until that decision is made, the contractor cannot know what claim he has or on what grounds administrative action may be vulnerable. It is only then that his claim or right to bring a civil action against the United States matures and, as the .Court of Claims said, that he has “the right to demand payment . . . the hallmark of accrual of a claim in this court.” 177 Ct. CL, at 252, 368 F. 2d, at 859.'

3. Tp hold that the six-year time period runs from the completion of the contract, as the Government insists, would have unfortunate impact. The contractor is compelled to resort to administrative proceedings which may be protracted and which may last not only beyond the completion of the contract but continue for more than six years thereafter. If the time bar starts running from the completion date, the contractor could, thus be barred from the courts by the time his administrative appeal is finally decided. This would be true whether he wins or loses before the board of appeals. Even if he prevailed there and was granted the equitable adjustment he sought, the Government would be immune from suit to enforce the award if more than six years had passed since the completion of the contract. This is not an appealing result, nor, in our view, one that Congress intended. The Wunderlich Act evidences a congressional purpose to. insure adequate judicial review of administrative decisions on claims arising under government contracts; it is very doubtful that it anticipated no review at all if administrative proceedings, compulsory on the contractor, continued for more than six years beyond the contract’s completion date.

The Government suggests that the contractor, may easily avoid such untoward results by the timely filing of a protective suit which could remain inactive pending the conclusion of administrative proceedings. But the contractor is not legally entitled to ask the courts to adjudicate his claim as an original matter. Nor-can'he-sensibly ask- the courts to review a decision which has not yet been made. He cannot, with honesty, make the necessary allegations to support an action for review until the administrative process is completed and the agency decision known. Since it would remain quiescent until the administrative decision is rendered, the protective suit would be a sheer formality in any event — a procedural trap for the unwary and an additional complication for those who - manage the dockets of the courts. Certainly it would be no help to those contractors fbr whom it is already too late to file such a suit, which is true of the petitioner in this case.

4. The Government challenges what the Court of Claims in Nager Electric considered to be the long-standing rule found in its own past cases. It asserts that many of the cases from which the purported rule was sifted do not involve the standard disputes clause and those that do state the rule by way of dictum only. But we think the Court of Claims fairly reflected the thrust and tenor of its prior opinions. At least, based on those eases, the ordinary contractor would have been wholly justified in concluding that he had six years from the conclusion of administrative proceedings to file his suit. Nor, aside from the decision in this case, have we been cited to any court of appeals decisions in Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505) cases, which are contrary to the rule followed by the Court of Claims.

5. This brings us to the cases in this Court upon which the Government and the Court of Appeals have relied: McMahon v. United States, 342 U. S. 25; Soriano v. United States, 352 U. S. 270; and Unexcelled Chemical Corp. v. United States, 345 U. S. 59. None of them was a Tucker Act suit involving a disputes clause claim. McMahon was an action brought by an injured seaman against the United States for negligence and unseaworthiness. The Suits in Admiralty Act requires actions to be brought within two years after . “the cause of action arises.” The Clarification Act, 57 Stat. 45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291 (a), which brought such .a seaman⅛ suit within the ambit of the Suits in Admiralty Act, permits court action only if the claim has been administratively disallowed, but sets no time within which a claim must be presented to the administrative body. The Court held that the limitations period ran from the time of the injury, not from the date of the disallowance of the claim. The Court saw no indications that Congress in passing the Clarification Act intended to postpone the usual time of accrual of the cause of action until the date of disallowance, since this would permit the claimant to postpone indefinitely the commencement of the running of the statutory period.

The Court has pointed out before, however, the hazards •inherent in attempting to define for all purposes when a ' “cause of action” first “accrues.” Such words are to be “interpreted in the light of the general purposes of the statute and of its other provisions, and with due regard to those practical ends which are to be served by any limitation of the time within which an action must be brought.” Reading Co. v. Koons, 271 U. S. 58, 62; see also United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745, 748. Cases under the Suits in Admiralty Act do not necessarily rule Tucker Act claims. .The purpose of the Clarification Act was to prevent • unnecessary litigation by providing for notice of injury to the United States and for the opportunity to settle claims administratively. But while suit was permitted only if a claim had-been “disallowed,” the applicable regulations provided that if a claim was not rejected within 60 days after filing, it would be deemed to have been administratively disallowed and the claimant would be free to enforce his claim. There was no chance for administrative action to consume the entire limitations period and therefore bar all resort to the courts.

In disputes clause cases, however, final administrative action, which the claimant must await, may occur more than six years after the completion of the contract. When it does, the claimant would be time-barred if the six-year period is measured from the date of final performance. Nor does the claimant in cases like the one before us have unlimited discretion as to when to file his claim. The standard changes clause requires him to present his claim within 30 days and most other clauses in government contracts calling for an equitable adjustment also contain their own time limitations. Where this is not true, the contractor cannot delay unreasonably in presenting his claim. This is the rule thei Court of Claims follows. See Nager Electric, supra, 177 Ct. Cl., at 259, 368 F. 2d, at 864.

Nor. do Soriano or Unexcelled control this case. In Soriano the six-year time bar was held to run from the date of the requisitioning of foodstuffs and equipment by Philippine guerrilla forces and not from , the date of the disallowance of a claim filed with the Army Claims Service. The majority in that case expressly held that the .administrative action was not a prerequisite to suit in the Court'of Claims. Likewise, in Unexcelled, where the statutory period was held to run- from the date of the breach of statutory duty- under the Walsh-Healey Act (49 Stat. 2036), rather than from the date'of the admin- . istrative determination of the liquidated damages due the Government, it seems apparent that the United States, to which damages were payable, could have brought suit without first resorting to administrative remedies.

6. Finally, the Government relies on Public Law 89-505, 80 Stat. 304, 28 U. S. C. § 2415 (1964 ed., Supp. II), enacted on July 18, 1966, which for the first time established a general statute of limitations on government tort claims and on suits by the Government for money damages founded on any contract, express or implied. Such suits must now be brought within “six years after the right of action accrues or within one year after final decisions have been rendered in applicable administrative proceedings required by contract or by law.” As an example of such administrative proceedings, the relevant committee reports and hearings mentioned the administrative proceedings required under the standard disputes clause contained in government contracts. H. R. Rep. No. 1534, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 4; S. Rep. No. 1328, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 3; Hearing on H. R. 13652 before Subcommittee No. 2 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1966). Based on this new provision, the Government argues that. Congress necessarily assumed that the right of action of the United States in disputes clause situations first accrues and the limitations period begins to run prior to the completion of administrative proceedings. Otherwise there would have been no need for the one-year period following final administrative decision in order to save actions which might otherwise be barred by the six-year limitation. What this amounts to, the Government says, is a congressional construction of the similar “first accrual” language of the older limitations on private actions contained in § 2401 (a) and § 2501. Likewise, it argues, this construction precludes holdings such as that of the Third Circuit in Northern Metal Co. v. United States, 350 F. 2d 833, to the effect that the statute is tolled during the pendency of administrative proceedings.

This argument is not without force. There is no question of the power of Congress to define the limits of its waiver of sovereign immunity. But we are not convinced that Congress intended to issue any determinative construction of § 2401' in formulating and passing § 2415. Neither in the hearing on H. R. 13652 nor in the committee reports did Congress focus on the first accrual language of § 2401, on the existing construction of that language by the Court of Claims or any other court or on the situation of the government contractor desiring to sue the United States during or after the •conclusion of administrative proceedings under the disputes clause. The bill was recommended to the Congress by the Department of Justice at the time the Department was litigating Nager Electric in the Court of Claims in which the Department. ultimately took the position that the private contractor’s right of action first accrues no later than the completion of the contract. This position was rejected by the Court of Claims, in favor of what is considered to be its existing rule — that the private contractor’s right to sue on a disputes clause claim first accrues with the termination of administrative proceedings. Given the Wunderlich Act, and the prior litigative history of disputes clause issues in- this Court and in the Court of Claims, we are doubtful that Con-' gress intended to bar a private contractor’s suit on a disputes clause claim where administrative proceedings continue for more than six years after the completion of the contract. Congress understood what the impact of such a rule would be if applied to the Government and made due allowance for it by allowing the Government the one-year grace period. We see no indications that it had in -mind the private litigant whose right to sue the United States is governed by § 2401. • We are hesitant to believe that in passing a statute aimed at equalizing the litigative .opportunities between-the Government and private parties Congress consciously extended a one-year saving period to the Government to overcome the effects of protracted administrative proceedings and refused similar relief to the contractor. At least we are sufficiently doubtful that we prefer to await a somewhat clearer signal from the Congress.

We therefore conclude that if the claim filed by the contractor in this case was a claim “arising under” the contract and was therefore subject to administrative determination, (1) its right to bring a civil action first accrued when the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finally ruled on its claim and (2) its suit in the District Court was timely filed. The Government in its answer to the complaint, however, denied that the claim arose under the contract, characterized it instead as a pure breach of contract claim which accrued no later-than the date of the completion of the contract. The District Court did not decide this issue; nor do we. This matter will be open on remand to the District Court. If the claim is not within the disputes clause, the court may then determine whether it is time-barred.

Reversed and remanded.

       The disputes-clause contained in the contract between petitioner and thé Government provides:
      “Except as otherwisé provided. in this contract, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this .contract which is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the Contracting Officer, who shall reduce his decision to writing and mail or. otherwise furnish a. copy thereof to the Contractor. Within 30 days from the date of receipt of such copy, the Contractor may appeal by mail-” ing or otherwise furnishing to the Contracting Officer a written appeal addressed to the Secretary, and the decision of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative for the hearing of such appeals shall, unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, be final and conclusive; provided that, if no such appeal is taken, the decision of the Contracting Officer shall b'e final and conclusive. In connection' with any appeal proceeding under this clause, the Contractor shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of its appeal. ■ Pending final decision of a dispute hereunder, the Contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of the contract and in accordance with the Contracting Officer’s decision.”
      For the disputes clause presently in use, see 32 CFR § 597.103-12.

       Claims not arising under those other clauses of the contract calling for eqüitable adjustment and therefore not within the disputes clause will sometimes be referred to herein as “breach” claims. See United States v. Utah Construction Co., 384 U. S. 394, 403-418.

       The record in this case, contains only excerpts from the changes clause of the contract at issue here. The standardized version of the changes clause, for fixed-price supply contracts provides, in its entirety,- that:
      “The Contracting Officer may at any time, by a written order, and without notice to the sureties, make changes, within the general scope of this contract, in any one or more of the following: (i) Drawings', designs, or specifications, where the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the Government' in accordance therewith; (ii) method of shipment or packing; and (iii) place of delivery. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for the performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether changed or not changed by any such order, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the contract price or delivery schedule, or both, and the contract shall' be modified in writing accordingly. Any claim by the Contractor for adjustment under this clause must be asserted within 30 days from the date of receipt by the Contractor of the notification of change, provided, however; that the Contracting Officer, if he decides that the facts justify such action, may receive and act upon any such claim, asserted at any time prior to final payment under this contract. Where the cost of property made obsolete or excess as result of a change is included in the Contractor’s claim for adjustment, the Contracting Officer shall have the right-to prescribe the manner of disposition of such property. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute concerning a question of fact within the meaning of the clause of this contract entitled. ‘Disputes.’ However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the contract as changed.” 32 CFR § 7.103-2.
      The excerpted version of the changes clause in this case appears in the unreported opinion of the District Court, and it seems substantially identical to the full clause quoted above.

       Section 1346 in relevant part provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Claims, of “. . . (2) Any other civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded .... upon any express of implied' contract with the United States . \ . .”

       Section 2501 provides as follows: “Every claim of which the Court of Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after such claim first accrues.”

       Where the administrative proceedings have not extended beyond the date of completion of the contract, the Court of Claims’ rule has been that “the claim accrues, and the statutory period com-menees, at the time of completion or acceptance (if the latter is contemplated).” 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 242, 368 F. 2d 847, 853.

       The Court of Claims summarized its prior rulings with respect to co-existing breach and disputes cláuse claims as follows:
      “Reading them all together; these opinions show, we think, that where a contractor has both ‘disput'es-clause’ items and ‘breach-type’- claims under a single contract, the following standards have controlled in this court: (i) there should be only one suit to enforce the various claim-items; (ii) the contractor can bring suit on the ripened ‘breach-type’ items before completion of the administrative process on the ‘disputes-elause’ items, but if he does so he may well lose the latter claims unless he includes them (by proper amendment, if necessary, as they mature) in his court action; but (iii) the contractor need not file suit on the ‘breach-type’ items until after the end, of the administrative process, when all the items have ripened and can be included in the one petition. In sum, our rule has been that the time-bar will not fall until six years after the administrative determination, but suit can be filed earlier, with the plaintiff taking the risk that he may thereby split his cause of action.” 177 Ct. CL, at 248-249, 368 F. 2d, at 857.

       We do not have a situation here where the- United States refuses to process the claim in accordance with its agreement or otherwise departs from the agreed-upon scheme for settling disputed issues within the disputes clause.

       41 U. S. C. §§321 and 322 provide as follows: ■
      “§ 321. Limitation on pleading contract-provisions relating to finality;' standards of review.
      “No provision' of any contract entered- into by the United States, relating to the finality or conclusiveness of any decision of the head of any department or ageiicy or his duly authorized - representative or board in a dispute involving-, a question arising under such contract, shall be pleaded in any-suit now filed or to be filed as limiting judicial review of any such decision to cases where fraud by such official or his said representative or board is alleged: Provided, however, That any such decision shall be final and conclusive unless the same is fradulent [sic] or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or is not supported by substantial evidence.
      “§ 322. Contract-provisions making decisions final on questions of law.
      “No Government contract-shall contain a provision making final on a question of law the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board.”

       The Committee Report on the Wunderlich Act disaffirms any intention to confer any new rights on the contractor other than the widened scope of review and refers specifically to the six-year statute of limitations barring stale suits against the Government. But the report does not suggest when the limitations period begins to run or purport to alter of ⅛. disagree with the then-extant judicial constructions of either ⅜⅞⅛¾⅛ § 2501 by .the Court of Claims or by any other eou/t. See H. R. Rep. No. 1380, 83d Cong., 2d Bess.

       We should in this respect heed the words of the Court of Claims: “The United States has known for decades that contract suits will be timely in this court, if they are filed within six years after the. administrative determination, and has probably acted on that assumption in keeping records and retaining evidence. On the other hand, to say abruptly at this moment that limitation runs from the contract’s completion, regardless of subsequent mandatory administrative proceedings, would undoubtedly cut off scores of contractors who, relying on our past decisions, have waited to bring suit until the ending of the administrative process. There is no adequate reason to disrupt these justified expectations.” 177 Ct. Cl., at 253-254, 368 F. 2d, at 860.

       The cases cited by’the Court of Claims are the following:

        Electric Boat Co. v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 361, 367-368, cert. denied, 297 U. S. 710; Austin Eng’r Co. v. United States, 88 Ct. Cl. 559, 562-564; Holton, Seelye & Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 477, 501, 65 F. Supp. 903, 907; Griffin v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 330, 372-373, 77 F. Supp. 197, 206, rev’d on other grounds, sub nom. United States v. Jones, 336 U. S. 641; Art Center School v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 218, 226, 142 F. Supp. 916, 921; Empire Institute of Tailoring, Inc. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 165, 168, 161 F. Supp. 409, 411 ; International Potato Corp. v. United States, 142 Ct. Cl. 604, 606-607, 161 F. Supp. 602, 604-605; Clifton Products, Inc. v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 806, 809, 169 F. Supp. 511, 512-513; Cosmopolitan Mfg. Co. v. United States, 156 Ct. Cl. 142, 144, 297 F. 2d 546, 547, cert. denied sub nom. Arlene Coats v. United States, 371 U. S. 818; Steel Improvement & Forge Co. v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 24, 29-30, 355 F. 2d 627, 631.
      The Court of Claims also dealt with Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States, 139 Ct. Cl. 642, 644, 153 F. Supp. 397, 399, a'case containing statements seemingly contrary to those found in the above cases.

       The Court of Claims dealt with the matter as follows:
      “Similarly, the contractor in the cases before us (and the mass of such cases) is not left at large to present his claim administratively ■ whenever he likes. The Disputes clause does not itself fix a time within which a disputed issue of fact must be- presented to the contracting officer, but that is not ordinarily true of the. various substantive contractual clauses which lead to equitable adjustments or. comparable relief under the contract. Those specific clauses usually have built-in time limits, and where no specific period is established in. the contract the contractor cannot delay unreasonably. Cf. Dawnic Steamship Corp. v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 537, 579 (1940). Neither.this court nor the administrative tribunals have had any' great difficulty in handling belated claims by contractors under the various contract-adjustment articles.' Contractors have not been able to extend the limitations period unduly by unilaterally postponing the commencement of the administrative process.” 177 Ct. Cl., at 259-260, 368 F. 2d, at 864.
      The court also noted that:
      “The standard Changes clause in construction contracts provides that claims for adjustment must be asserted within 10 days; the Changed Conditions clause calls for an immediate notification to the contracting officer; the Delays-Damages clause contemplates a notice within 10 days of excusable delays; the Price -Adjustment for Suspension, Delays, or Interruption of Work clause sets 20 days as the normal period. See United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U. S. 394, 397-399 n. 1, 416 n. 14, 86 S. Ct. 1545, 16 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1966).” Id., at 259, n. 29, 368 F. 2d, at 864, n. 29.
      The 30-dav period within which a fixed-price supply contractor must assert his claim for equitable adjustment arising from changes, see text above and supra, n. 3, ,may be shortened in accordance with Department procedure, 32 CFR § 7.103-2, or with negotiations, 32 CFR § 597.103-2.

      The congressional intent to “put the Government on a parity with those private litigants who may sue” and “to equalize the position of litigants” is sufficiently evident. See Hearing on H. R. 13652 before Subcommittee No. 2 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 9, 11 (1966); H. R. Rep.. No. 1534, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 4; S. Rep. No. 1328, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 2. Whether Congress succeeded in establishing exact equality between contractors and the Government is of course another question. In this regard, it-is interesting to note that in addition to the one year following the termination of -administrative proceedings in which the Government can institute a suit under §2415, subsection (e) of that provision provides that:
      “In the event that any action to which this section applies is timely brought and is thereafter .dismissed without prejudice, the action may be reeommencecl within one year after such dismissal, regardless of whether the action would otherwise then be barred by this section.. In any action so recommenced the defendant shall -not be barred from interposing any claim which would not have been barred' in the original action.” 28 U. S. C. §2415 (e) (1964 ed., Supp. II).