PERRIN
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.
In 1854, a U.S. Navy vessel bombarded and destroyed the town of San Juan del Norte, destroying merchandise and property belonging to naturalized U.S. citizens who sought compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claim, holding that it could not be maintained because it was not founded upon any law of Congress, executive regulation, or contract with the United States government.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr, Justice CLIFFORD stated the case and delivered the judgment-of this court.
The petitioners alleged in the court below that they were naturalized citizens of the United States; that just before the' 18th of July, 1854, they arrived at San Juan del Norte, or Grey town, possessed of a valuable invoice of merchandise, with the intention of establishing a commercial house in some part of Central America; that on that day the town of San Juau was bombarded and burnt by the United States sloop-of-war Cyane, and all the merchandise, books, and papers of the petitioners, together with their personal effects. Appearance was entered by the Assistant Attorney-General, and he demurred to the petition because it did not set forth facts Sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. Whereupon the petitioners appealed to this court,-and alleged that the decision sustaining the demurrer was erroneous, but the court here, inasmuch as the claim is not one “founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with, the government of the United States,” concurs in opinion with thé-Court of Claims and-Affirms the decree dismissing the petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1888)
-
The Nat'l Bd. OF the Young Men's Christian Ass'ns v. The United States, 396 F.2d 467 (Ct. Cl. 1968)…al favor bestowed, has ever paid for the property of even its own citizens in its own country destroyed in attacking or defending against a common public enemy * * Perrin v. United States, 4 Ct.Cl. 543, 547-548 (1968), aff’d, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 315, 20 L.Ed. 412 (1870). See also United States v. Pacific R.R., 120 U.S. 227, 7 S.Ct. 490, 30 L.Ed. 634 (1887). The United States was not at war with the Republic of Panama at the time plaintiffs’ buildings were occupied but Army troops were confronted with a larg…1 / 2
-
Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The United States, 453 F.2d 1380 (Ct. Cl. 1972)…117 (1969); United States v. Pacific R. R., 120 U.S. 227, 78 S.Ct. 490, 30 L.Ed. 634 (1887); United States v. Caltex, Inc., 344 U.S. 149, 73 S.Ct. 200, 97 L.Ed. 157 (1952); Perrin v. United States, 4 Ct.Cl. 543 (1868), aff’d, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 315, 20 L.Ed. 412 (1870); and Franco-Italian Packing Co. v. United States, 128 F.Supp. 408, 130 Ct.Cl. 736 (1955). In other words, the vessel was destroyed as a part of the fortunes of war and by actual and necessary military operations in attacking and defending aga…