Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States

250 U.S. 1

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1919-05-19
Topic
general

Memorandum opinion by The Chief Justice. Recovery was sought in the court below from the United States for property taken by it as the result of the alleged firing of guns in a fortification-on the coast of Maine and the passing of the projectiles oyer and across *2 a portion of the land alleged to have been taken. The court finding that a former case by it decided against the owners and here affirmed (Peabody v. United States, 231 U. S. 530), for taking of the same land resulting from instances of gun fire resulting from the same fort and guns, was identical with this, except for some occasional subsequent acts of gun fire, held that case to be conclusive of this and rejected the claim on the merits.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
27 opinions
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR LAND HOTEL COMPANYv. UNITED STATES,250 U.S. 1(1919)
39 S.Ct. 399
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR LAND HOTEL COMPANY ET AL.v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 381.
Argued May 1, 1919.
Decided May 19, 1919.
Additional discharges of projectiles over part of plaintiff's land,heldnot to involve a taking of property.Peabodyv.United States,231 U.S. 530. Applications for remand and for additional findings denied. 53 Ct. Clms. 210, affirmed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. John Lowell, with whomMr. Frank W. Hackettwas on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Brown, with whomMr. CharlesH. Westonwas on the brief, for the United States.
Memorandum opinion by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Recovery was sought in the court below from the United States for property taken by it as the result of the alleged firing of guns in a fortification on the coast of Maine and the passing of the projectiles over and acrossPage 2a portion of the land alleged to have been taken. The court finding that a former case by it decided against the owners and here affirmed (Peabodyv.United States,231 U.S. 530), for taking of the same land resulting from instances of gun fire resulting from the same fort and guns, was identical with this, except for some occasional subsequent acts of gun fire, held that case to be conclusive of this and rejected the claim on the merits.

Coming to consider this action of the court in the light of the findings by it made, we are constrained to the conclusion that it was right and that no possible difference exists between this and thePeabody Case. Before applying this conclusion we say that we find that the record discloses no ground for the applications here made to remand and for additional findings.Judgment affirmed.