## Facts

- Sutcliffe Storage & Warehouse Co., Inc. leased warehouse space in Boston to the United States.
- Sutcliffe alleged the United States occupied additional space beyond what was covered by the arrangement and owed additional “use and occupancy” charges measured by rental value.
- Sutcliffe filed four Tucker Act suits in the District of Massachusetts in February 1946, each covering consecutive periods from June 15, 1942 through December 31, 1945, all involving the same premises and the same rate methodology.
- Each suit sought less than $10,000 so as to remain within the district court’s Tucker Act jurisdictional cap, though the combined amount exceeded $10,000.
- The district court dismissed the second, third, and fourth suits as impermissible subdivisions of the claim asserted in the first suit; the first suit remained pending.
- Sutcliffe appealed, contending each time period created a distinct cause of action that could be separately litigated in district court.

## Issues

1. Whether multiple contemporaneously filed district court actions, each under $10,000, may be maintained for consecutive time periods of alleged underpayment for the same continuing use and occupancy, when the combined amount exceeds the Tucker Act’s $10,000 district court limit.
2. Whether amounts allegedly due on a running obligation (rent-like use and occupancy) must be aggregated into a single claim for all sums due when suit is filed, barring later suits for preexisting amounts.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the second, third, and fourth actions.
- The court held the four suits were not separate causes of action but inseparable parts of a single claim arising from one continuing transaction involving the same premises and alleged underpayment.
- The plaintiff could not divide the claim into multiple suits to remain within the district court’s $10,000 Tucker Act cap.
- The plaintiff’s options were to pursue the entire claim in the Court of Claims or to waive any recovery above $10,000 and proceed in district court within that limit.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may not split an indivisible claim into multiple actions to circumvent a statutory jurisdictional amount limitation.
- For running accounts or installment-type obligations such as rent, a claimant must include in one action all amounts that are due at the time the action is filed.
- Res judicata principles bar later suits for amounts already due and recoverable when the first action was filed, even if the plaintiff attempted to segment the claim by time periods.
- The rule against claim-splitting applies equally when the defendant is the United States; the Tucker Act’s jurisdictional cap cannot be avoided by pleading strategy.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit treated the warehouse company’s four rent-like “use and occupancy” suits as components of a single claim and barred their division to avoid the Tucker Act’s $10,000 district court limit, requiring either waiver of the excess or pursuit of the full claim in the Court of Claims.


Sutcliffe Storage & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 162 F.2d 849 (1st Cir. 1947)