Opinion of the Court 100 C. Cls. concerning questions arising under the contract. Effect must be given, of course, to all parts of the contract; no provision should be construed as being in conflict with another one unless no other reasonable interpretation is possible. This is axiomatic. Paragraph 4 of the general conditions of the specifications is not in conflict with article 15 of the contract. Paragraph 4 makes the Commissioner of Indian Affairs the interpreter of the meaning of the specifications, but it does not make his interpretation final and conclusive; it does not say that there shall be no appeal therefrom to the head of the department. The provisions of article 15 of the contract apply to such disputes as well as others. It is clear that the contractor in this case did have a right to appeal to the head of the department. The head of the department has ruled that plaintiff is entitled to the extra expense to which it was put for furnishing temporary heat over and aove what it would have cost it had it been permitted to connect with the existing system. The question for decision by defendant's representatives, of course, was whether or not there was an available existing system from which temporary heat could have been obtained. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs held there was not, but the head of the department overruled him and held that there was. The defendant does not here deny that an existing system was available; it merely says that it was for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to determine this question and not for the head of the department. We hold this is incorrect and that the defendant is bound by the decision of the head of its department in this case. We do not mean to say that in a proper case the decision of the head of the department is not subject to review by this court, but in a case such as this one, where defendant offers no proof to show the decision is erroneous, it certainly should be bound by it. The decision was by its own officer, selected by it to make final decisions, binding on the contractor. The defendant is in no position to contend that a decision adverse to it should not bind it also. Except in 259 Reporter's Statement of the Case rare cases, such as a suit by the contractor for damages, or in case of fraud or mistake, the defendant is and should be bound by the decisions of the person it selected to make final decisions. Cf. Arthur W. Langevin v. United States, No. 43903, ante, page 15. Judgment will be rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $983.58. It is so ordered. MADDEN, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; and WHALEY, Chief Justice, concur. JONES, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case. FREDRICK RODIEK, ANCILLARY EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF JOHN F. HACKFELD, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES [Congressional No. 17745. Decided October 4, 1943] On the Proofs Enemy-owned property sold by Alien Property Custodian under "Trading with the Enemy Act."-Report to the Senate in accordance with Senate Resolution 229, May 10, 1934, and Section 151 of the Judicial Code (U. S. Code, Title 28, Section 257). The Reporter's statement of the case: Mr. Reuben D. Silliman for plaintiff. Messrs. Thos. P. Gore and William R. Rodenberg were on the brief. Mr. Harry Le Roy Jones, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea, for defendant. Messrs. Frederick Bernays Wiener, Richard J. Connor, Frederick L. Smith, and George A. McNulty were on the brief. March 28, 1934, a Bill for the relief of the Estate of John F. Hackfeld was introduced in the Senate of the United States which authorized and directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay "to the estate of John F. Hackfeld, deceased, the sum of $3,000,000 in full settlement of all claims against the Government for injuries sustained growing out of the sale of the assets of H. Hackfeld and Company, Limited, a Reporter's Statement of the Case 100 C. Cls. Hawaiian corporation, of which said John F. Hackfeld was the principal stockholder, by an order of the Alien Property Custodian of the United States." May 10, 1934, this Bill was, by Senate Resolution 229, referred to this court for hearing and report of the facts under Section 151 of the Judicial Code (Title 28, U. S. Code, Sec. 257). The Executor of the Estate of John F. Hackfeld duly filed a petition in this court and a large volume of oral and documentary evidence has been taken and submitted by the parties. After the case was first briefed for submission to the court, it was remanded upon motion of the defendant for the taking of further proof by both parties. The case was later briefed and submitted in January 1943. The court, having made the foregoing introductory statement, entered special findings of fact as follows: 1. The plaintiff, Fredrick Rodiek, is a citizen of the United States and the duly qualified and acting ancillary executor of the will of John F. Hackfeld, deceased, by appointment of the Surrogate's Court of the County and State of New York. CITIZENSHIP OF JOHN F. HACKFELD 2. John F. Hackfeld was born in Grueppenbuehren, Oldenburg, Germany, December 26, 1856, and upon the organization of the German Empire became a citizen or subject of Germany. He died in Bremen, Germany, August 27, 1932. He went to Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1877 and upon his arrival there he was employed as a clerk in the firm of H. Hackfeld & Co., and in 1881 he became a partner in that firm. John F. Hackfeld married in Germany in 1888, and in that year returned to Honolulu with his wife and bought a home in which they resided until October 1900. In 1897 the partnership of H. Hackfeld & Co., was incorporated as H. Hackfeld & Co., Ltd., and John F. Hackfeld was made vice president. He became president of the company in 1903 which position he held until January 1918. John F. Hackfeld was present and had his residence in Germany from October 10, 1887, until April 1, 1888. He left Hawaii on May 9, 1893, went to Germany and returned to 267 Reporter's Statement of the Case Hawaii on October 7, 1893. He claimed, in representations to officials of the United States in 1923 and 1924, to have lost his status as a German subject by reason of ten years' continuous absence from Germany prior to the year 1888. A German national lost his German citizenship by a continuous absence from Germany for a period of more than ten years under Section 21 of the German Citizenship Law of June 21, 1870, which was in force from its date to 1913, and read as follows: North Germans who have left the territory of the North German Federation lose their citizenship through continuous sojourn abroad for a period of ten years. The mentioned period is counted from the day when the territory of the Federation is left or, if the person relinquishing the citizenship is in possession of travelling papers or of a certificate of domicile, from the day the validity of such papers expires. Entry upon the records of a German consulate interrupts the ten-year period. It begins again the day following the cancellation of the entry in the records of the consulate. Loss of citizenship occurring in this manner applies also to the wife and such minor children as are under paternal control, provided the wife and such children live with the husband or father, respectively. North Germans who have lived continuously for at least five years in a foreign state and have acquired its citizenship may be granted by treaty a reduction of the ten-year period to one of five years regardless of whether the interested persons were in possession of travelling papers or certificates of domicile. North Germans who have lost their citizenship through ten years' sojourn abroad without acquiring any other citizenship may be granted citizenship in the state in which they were formerly domiciled even if they do not take up residence in such state. North Germans who have lost their citizenship through ten years' sojourn abroad and intend to return to the territory of the North German Federation, acquire the citizenship in the state of the Federation in which they have established their residence, through a document of reception issued by the higher administrative authority, which, upon request, must be furnished them. John F. Hackfeld was never absent from Germany for a continuous period of ten years following October 18, 1877, 574432-44-vol. 100- 19 Reporter's Statement of the Case 100 C. Cls. the date on which he left Germany for the first time to go to Hawaii. 3. The marriage agreement of John F. Hackfeld dated at Braunschweig, Germany, March 19, 1888, stated that "The betrothed, being bound for Honolulu after their marriage, where the future husband has his business, the husband having also German nationality, however, considering Bremen as his true domicile to which the couple will eventually return if the business of the husband will allow them to do so, it is agreed upon and between them that the community of goods of the city of Bremen shall apply in regard to the property of the husband, present and future, personal and real, inherited and acquired." The climate of Hawaii affected the health of Mrs. Hackfeld and in October 1900, on the order of her doctor, Mr. and Mrs. Hackfeld with their two daughters left Honolulu for Germany. There Mrs. Hackfeld was placed under the care of specialists and for a number of years spent most of her time in sanatoriums. She never recovered her health sufficiently to leave Germany. She is still alive and resident in Germany. From 1900 until the outbreak of the World War in August 1914, John F. Hackfeld spent about half of his time in Honolulu, Hawaii, engaged chiefly in directing the affairs of the business firm of which he was the head. His trips to Honolulu and return were as follows: Honolulu : Departure from Germany | Arrival in Germany from for Honolulu : Oct. 29, 1901. Sept. 9, 1902. Jan. 30, 1904. Jan. 23, 1906. Jan. 6, 1912. May 27, 1902. June 8, 1905. July 11, 1906. July 20, 1909. Feb. 8, 1913. Before his arrival in Germany on his last trip, he was booked to return to Honolulu in October 1914, on the steamship "Columbus," but was prevented from doing so by the outbreak of the World War, and the sickness of his wife. |