TALBERT
v.
UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES V. TALBERT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment awarding William Talbert $6,564.30 for the government's use of his patented marine railway improvement under a special relief act of Congress that referred his claim to the Court of Claims. The Court held that because the case involved only questions of fact on appeal—specifically the valuation of the patented improvement—and the Court of Claims' factual findings were supported by the record, it could not review or disturb the lower court's determination of damages.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Tie court declined to hear him in No. 24, and in No. 25 he submitted on his brief.
The Chief Justice :
This was a suit brought in the Court of Claims under an act of Congress entitled “An act for the relief of William Talbert,” approved June 30, 1886, and reading as follows: “That the claim of William Talbert, of Montgomery County, Maryland, for the use by the government of his patented improvement for marine railways be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims, with authority to take jurisdiction thereof, and to award judgment thereon, as the merits of the case may demand, according to its value to the government during the existence of such patent.” 24 Stat. 822, c. 591.
The court filed findings of fact and a conclusion of law; rendered an opinion, reported in 25 C. Cl. 141; and gave judgment in claimant’s favor for $6564.30, from which both parties appealed, but argument is waived by the government on its cross-appeal. Among the findings of fact was the following: “ VTII. The value to the government of plaintiff’s patented improvement for marine railways during the existence of his patent was $6564.30, being 2 per cent upon the amount earned by the railway cradle as improved during said period.” On this appeal only questions of law can be reviewed, and none such are presented for our consideration. The contention is that the sum awarded ivas far less than it should have been. But the eighth finding was one of fact, and there is nothing in the other findings or elsewhere in the record which authorizes us to go behind that finding and conclude that there was error in respect thereof.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (49 total)
-
Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1936)…latter has no application in this case. The distinction between substantive rights and inconsistent remedies is well recognized. United States v. Oregon Lumber Co., 260 U. S. 290, text 307, 43 Sup. Ct. 100, 67 L. Ed. 261; Robb v. Vos, 155 U. S. 13, 15 Sup. Ct. 4, 39 L. Ed. 1070; Schenck v. State Line Tel. Co., 238 N. Y. 308, 144 N. E. 592, and cases there cited. The election between inconsistent remedies has no reference to transactions giving rise to distinct and independent grounds of action which may be…
-
Weeke v. Reeve, 65 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1913)…206, 60 South. Rep. 189. The plaintiff having ratified the purchase of the land by bringing an action for damages, he cannot now repudiate the purchase and have rescission. Smith v. Gray, 52 Wash. 255; 100 Pac. Rep. 339; Robb v. Vos, 155 U. S. 13, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4. Even if the amended bill of complaint contains allegations not covered by the declaration in the action at law for damages, the plaintiff knew of the facts when he brought Ms action for damages, and such knowledge operates as an estoppel m pads. S…
-
Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987)…79, 387, 29 L.Ed. 659 (1886); Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 U.S. 373, 378, 6 S.Ct. 931, 933, 29 L.Ed. 950 (1886); McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 425, 12 S.Ct. 76, 78, 35 L.Ed. 800 (1891); Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U.S. 47, 52, 15 S.Ct. 1, 3, 39 L.Ed. 64 (1894); Black Diamond Coal Mining Co. v. Excelsior Coal Co., 156 U.S. 611, 617-18, 15 S.Ct. 482, 484, 39 L.Ed. 553 (1895); Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Ref. Co., 198 U.S. 399, 410, 25 S.Ct. 697, 702, 49 L.Ed. 1100 (1905). In accordance wi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 49 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence