- 94 -
166 Bankr. 484, 493 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994). To the same effect,
outside bankruptcy, see such cases as United States v. Tsosie, 92
F.3d 1037, , (10th Cir. 1996) (Indian land case); FDIC v.
Hulsey, 22 F.3d 1472, 1487-1488 (10th Cir. 1994) (secured loan
agreement); Frederick v. United States, 386 F.2d 481, 488 (5th
Cir. 1967) (suit on a note); Shipping Corp. of India, Ltd. v.
Pan-Am. Seafood, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 1555, 1557 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)
(admiralty); United States v. Timber Access Indus. Co., 54 F.R.D.
36 (D. Or. 1971) (logging contract).
United States v. Timber Access Indus. Co., supra, is close
to the point but not on all fours with our overpayment issue.
The United States, as trustee for an Indian tribe, sued the
defendant logger, asserting breaches of a logging contract, for
$47,561.06. The defendant counterclaimed under the same
contract, alleging that the Government owed it $109,870.85, and
argued that, although it could not have full recovery on the
counterclaim, it was entitled to a credit of $47,561.06 as
recoupment and, beyond that, affirmative recovery of $10,000
under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(2) (1994)($10,000
being the jurisdictional limit on Tucker Act claims in the
District Court40). The Government argued that sovereign immunity
40There is no such monetary limitation on contractual claims
against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, 28
U.S.C. sec. 1491 (1994), and the District Court in United States
(continued...)
Page: Previous 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011