Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Bothwell v. United States

Bothwell v. United States, 254 U.S. 231 (1920)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1920-12-06
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • loss resulting from a sale of cattle below fair market value after the construction of a government dam flooded farmland was not compensable

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bothwell v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
62 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Taking — Implied Contract to Compensate When the Government takes private property, it is bound by an implied contract to pay for the property actually taken, arising from the dictates of justice and the requirements of the Fifth Amendment. 254 U.S. at 232 (citing United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 329)
  2. Constitutional Law — Taking — Compensable Losses Where Government action results in no actual taking of property, there is no basis for an implied promise to make compensation; thus, damages for destruction of a business or losses sustained through an enforced sale of property are not recoverable. 254 U.S. at 232
  3. Civil Procedure — Scope of Review — Failure to Appeal A party that does not appeal from a judgment will not be heard in an appellate court to question the correctness of the trial court's decree, even where that party is the Government. 254 U.S. at 233 (citing Cherokee Nation v. Blackfeather, 155 U.S. 218, 221)
BOTHWELLv. UNITED STATES,254 U.S. 231(1920)
41 S.Ct. 74
BOTHWELL ET AL.v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 78.
Argued November 9, 1920.
Decided December 6, 1920.
The contract implied from a taking by the Government is a contract to pay for the property actually taken. P. 232. Where construction of a Government dam flooded private land, destroyed the owner's hay there stored and forced him to remove and sell his cattle,held, assuming an implied obligation to pay for the hay, there was none to pay the loss due to forced sale of the cattle and destruction of business.Id. To review a judgment of the Court of Claims, the Government must appeal; it cannot attack it on the claimant's appeal. P. 233. 54 Ct. Clms. 203, affirmed.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Page 232
Mr. Charles H. Merillatfor appellants.Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davisfor the United States.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellants owned and utilized in their business of stock raising a large tract of land lying in Sweetwater Valley, Wyoming. In June, 1909, much hay was stored upon the land and a thousand head of cattle were there confined. Under the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, c. 1093, § 7,32 Stat. 389, the United States constructed the Pathfinder Dam. This arrested the flood waters and caused inundation of appellants' lands. The hay was destroyed and it became necessary to remove the animals and sell them at prices below their fair value.

Proceedings to condemn the land were instituted by the appellee, in the United States Circuit Court for Wyoming, before the overflow. It is said the right to enter was not acquired until thereafter. The value of the land was ascertained and paid, but the court denied appellants' claim for the hay, and for loss consequent upon forced sale of the cattle and destruction of the business. No appeal was taken. The present suit was instituted to recover for the items so disallowed. The court below gave judgment for value of the hay only, and the cause is here upon claimants' appeal.

Certainly appellants' position in respect of the items in question is no better than it would have been if no condemnation proceedings had been instituted. In the circumstances supposed there might have been a recovery "for what actually has been taken, upon the principle that the Government by the very act of taking impliedly has promised to make compensation because the dictates ofPage 233justice and the terms of the Fifth Amendment so require."UnitedStatesv.Cress,243 U.S. 316,329. But nothing could have been recovered for destruction of business or loss sustained through enforced sale of the cattle. There was no actual taking of these things by the United States, and consequently no basis for an implied promise to make compensation. We need not consider the effect of the judgment in the condemnation proceedings.

It is suggested that although the United States did not appeal they may now contest the judgment upon the ground that there was no contractual obligation to make compensation for the hay. "Without an appeal, a party will not be heard in an appellate court to question the correctness of the decree of the trial court."Cherokee Nationv.Blackfeather,155 U.S. 218,221.

The judgment below isAffirmed.