Skip to content


Portsmouth Harbor Co. Vs. United States - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number250 U.S. 1
AppellantPortsmouth Harbor Co.
RespondentUnited States
Excerpt:
portsmouth harbor co. v. united states - 250 u.s. 1 (1919) u.s. supreme court portsmouth harbor co. v. united states, 250 u.s. 1 (1919) portsmouth harbor land & hotel company v. united states no. 381 argued may 1, 1919 decided may 19, 1919 250 u.s. 1 appeal from the court of claims syllabus additional discharges of projectiles over part of plaintiff's land held not to involve a taking of property. peabody v. 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. memorandum opinion by the chief justice. recovery was sought in the court below from the united states for property taken by it as.....
Judgment:
Portsmouth Harbor Co. v. United States - 250 U.S. 1 (1919)
U.S. Supreme Court Portsmouth Harbor Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 1 (1919)

Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company v. United States

No. 381

Argued May 1, 1919

Decided May 19, 1919

250 U.S. 1

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

Additional discharges of projectiles over part of plaintiff's land held not to involve a taking of property. Peabody v. 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.

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 across

Page 250 U. S. 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

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 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //