Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Lyons Vs US

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous TTHbufD7
    The United States entered into a contract with Harry Lyons, Inc. for stevedoring services at a naval base that was set to terminate in June 1956. Harry Lyons sued the US to collect money owed under the contract. The US claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since a sovereign state cannot be sued without consent. However, the court ruled it did have jurisdiction because by entering into the contract, the US descended to the level of an individual and impliedly consented to being sued for issues arising from the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lyons Vs US

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous TTHbufD7
    27 views1 page
    The United States entered into a contract with Harry Lyons, Inc. for stevedoring services at a naval base that was set to terminate in June 1956. Harry Lyons sued the US to collect money owed under the contract. The US claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since a sovereign state cannot be sued without consent. However, the court ruled it did have jurisdiction because by entering into the contract, the US descended to the level of an individual and impliedly consented to being sued for issues arising from the contract.

    Original Description:

    Consti 1

    Original Title

    Lyons vs US

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States entered into a contract with Harry Lyons, Inc. for stevedoring services at a naval base that was set to terminate in June 1956. Harry Lyons sued the US to collect money owed under the contract. The US claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since a sovereign state cannot be sued without consent. However, the court ruled it did have jurisdiction because by entering into the contract, the US descended to the level of an individual and impliedly consented to being sued for issues arising from the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    Lyons Vs US

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous TTHbufD7
    The United States entered into a contract with Harry Lyons, Inc. for stevedoring services at a naval base that was set to terminate in June 1956. Harry Lyons sued the US to collect money owed under the contract. The US claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since a sovereign state cannot be sued without consent. However, the court ruled it did have jurisdiction because by entering into the contract, the US descended to the level of an individual and impliedly consented to being sued for issues arising from the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Harry Lyons, Inc. vs.

    The United States of America


    September 26, 1958

    Facts:

    Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for stevedoring service at the U.S. Naval Base, Subic Bay.
    The contract was to terminate on June 1956. The contract entered into was pursuant to the provisions
    of Section 2 (c) (1) of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947.

    Plaintiff (Lyons) brought action to collect sums of money arising from the contract entered between
    plaintiff and defendant (US). Action was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

    Defendant US filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction, it being a
    sovereign State which cannot be sued without its consent.

    US contends that it is an established principle of jurisprudence that sovereign cannot be sued in its own
    courts, or in any other, without its consent and permission.

    Issue: Whether or not the trial has jurisdiction over the case

    Ruling:

    Yes. The Court ruled that Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case considering that the US Government
    through its agency at Subic Bay entered into a contract with appellant, it can be sued upon the theory
    that it has descended to the level of an individual from which it can be implied that it has given its
    consent to be sued under the contract.

    Discussions: If, where and when the state or its government enters into a contract, through its officers
    or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative
    authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, the
    state itself may be sued even without its consent, because by entering into a contract the sovereign
    state has descended to the level of the citizen and consent to be sued is implied from the very act of
    entering into such contract.

    You might also like