PORTSMOUTH HARBOR LAND & HOTEL COMPANY ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company sought compensation from the United States for property damage caused by artillery fire from a coastal Maine fortification, but the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's rejection of the claim based on the prior identical case Peabody v. United States, finding no material difference between the two disputes.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 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.
Coming to consider this action of the court in the light of the findings by it made, we are constrained to the con-, elusion that it was right and that no possible difference exists between this and the Peabody 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1932)…ent [*104] begins to carry out the project authorized. Compare United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, 469; United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 328; Peabody v. United States, 231 U. S. 530, 538; Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U. S. 1; 260 U. S. 327, 329. If that which has been done, or is contemplated, does constitute such a taking, the complainant can recover just compensation under the Tucker Act in an action at law as upon an implied contract, since the validity of the Act an…
-
Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1922)…United States Government. Similar claims in respect of the same land based upon earlier acts of the Government have been made before and have been denied. Peabody v. United States, 231 U. S. 530. Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U. S. 1. But it is urged that the cumulative effect of later acts added to those that have been held not enough to establish a taking leads to a different result. — The land is on Gerrish Island, lying east of the entrance to Portsmouth Harbor, and borders…1 / 3
-
Harris v. United States, 205 F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1953)…lities. The court held that the menace created by the presence of the guns did not impose a servitude or constitute an appropriation or taking of private property for public use. And again, in Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company v. United States, 250 U.S. 1, 39 S.Ct. 399, 63 L.Ed. 809, subsequent gun fire over the same land was held not to justify a different conclusion. But repeated and cumulated firing over the same lands was held to amount to the imposition of a servitude and a taking in Portsmouth…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peabody v. United States, 231 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1913)