Of the production of 2,250,000 pounds, 270,000 bales were on hand and inspected when armistice was declared in late 1918.

[4] Faced with this repudiation of the contract, the producers agreed to the modification and sought recovery by petition to the U.S. Senate under Judicial Code § 145, the predecessor to 28 U.S.C.

[7] As such, there was no duress as the plaintiffs had substantial time, prior to agreeing to the modification, to seek redress in a court of law for their claims under the original contract and that therefore the remedies at law were not inadequate as to invoke the doctrine of duress.

[8] On appeal to the Supreme Court, the producers contested the Court of Claims findings of jurisdiction and on the element of duress in the contract, alleging a lack of jurisdiction, the existence of duress, and a lack of consideration for the contract.

[9] He argued that the Senate resolution referring the case to the Court of Claims had no effect on and did not enlarge its jurisdiction.