CASES DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR ON CERTIORARI THERETO YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS v. UNITED STATES [61 C. Cls. 40; 272 U. S. 351] Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. Upon certiorari the judgment was reversed, the Supreme Court deciding: 1. Where promises are in the alternative, the fact that one of them is at the time, or subsequently becomes, impossible of performance does not, without more, relieve the promisor from performing the other. 2. In an agreement, ratified by Congress in 1894, by which the Yankton Sioux Indians made a large cession of lands to the United States, it was stipulated, in part consideration for the cession and with respect to a small tract of other land containing pipestone quarries which were long claimed by the Indians under a treaty of 1858 with encouragement from Congress, (1) that if the Government questioned their ownership of that reservation, including the fee of the land as well as the right to work the quarries, the Secretary of the Interior should as speedily as possible refer the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States for decision, and (2) that if this were not done within one year from the ratification of the agreement by Congress, such failure, on the part of the Secretary, should be a waiver by the United States of all rights to the ownership of such pipestone reservation, and the same should thereafter be solely the property of the tribe. The Secretary, believing the provision for securing a decision of the court was beyond the power of Congress, and being advised by the Attorney General that it was impracticable, made no attempt to carry it out. Syllabus The land ceded was opened to settlement by the Government and passed largely into the possession of innocent purchasers, making restoration of the status quo ante impossible. In view of the equities growing out of these facts, Held, that the second of the alternative stipulations was enforceable even if the first was not. Mr. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 22, 1926. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. UNITED STATES [60 C. Cls. 662; 272 U. S. 445] Judgment was rendered in part in favor of the United States in the court below. Upon certiorari the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding: 1. Military impedimenta were shipped by the War Department by expedited service over a railroad which was bound by landgrant acts to transport property of the United States "at rates not exceeding 50 per cent of those paid by private shippers for the same kind of service." The railroad had no tariff for such service available to the public at large, but had filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a special tariff applicable to such Government shipments, which made no land-grant deductions. Held, (1) that no contract of the United States to pay the special tariff rate could be implied from the fact that the shipments were made when the special tariff was the only one applicable on file, in the absence of proof that the contracting officers then knew of that tariff; (2) that the tariff having been filed without statutory authority, those officers were not chargeable, as a matter of law, with knowledge of it. 2. To recover in the Court of Claims the reasonable value of service rendered the Government, the claimant must prove its value. Mr. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 22, 1926. Syllabus LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. UNITED STATES [59 C. Cls. 628; 272 U. S. 533] Judgment was rendered in part in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding: 1. An appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (entered April 28, 1924) applied for while a motion for a new trial and amended findings was pending, though premature, was not a nullity, and became effective when the motion was denied and the appeal allowed. 2. Time did not run against the right to appeal while the motion for new trial and amended findings was pending. 3. The limits placed by Congress on the scope of review in this court of judgments of the Court of Claims, do not deprive defeated claimants of due process of law under the fifth amendment. 4. Under the law and rules governing the subject, review of judg ments of the Court of Claims is confined to questions of law shown by the record when made up as the rules direct. Evidence is not included in the record, nor rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence. 5. Where the findings are ambiguous, contradictory or silent in respect of a material matter, or appear on their face ill founded in point of law, the case may and should be remanded for corrected or additional findings, but this is to be done only where the need for correction or addition is apparent either on the face of the findings or when they are examined in connection with the pleadings. 6. An order of the Court of Claims overruling a motion for a new trial, which brought nothing new into the case, held not reviewable. 7. Evidential and plainly subordinate matter is inappropriate to a finding of ultimate facts. 8. A finding of the value of property taken by the Government held a finding of fact, and not reviewable. 9. A claimant is not in position to press requests for findings which do not appear to have been tendered to the Court of Claims as required by the Rule. 10. Where an owner of boats which were taken over by the United States under the act of June 15, 1917, elected not to accept as full compensation the sum fixed by the President, but to accept 51739-28-c c-voL 63—43 Syllabus three-fourths of it, under the act, and sue for more, but recoyered only the additional fourth which he had declined to accept, he was not entitled under the Fifth Amendment to interest on such deferred compensation. Mr. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 23, 1926. HEIRS OF SAMUEL GARLAND v. CHOCTAW NATION PITCHLYNN ET AL., HEIRS AT LAW, v. CHOCTAW NATION [59 C. Cls. 768, id., 796; 272 U. S. 728] Judgments were rendered in favor of the Choctaw Nation in the court below. On appeal the judgments were affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding: 1. Upon a reference to determine a claim for services on a quantum meruit basis, when the Court of Claims finds the amounts already paid the claimant, and dismisses his petition, or renders judgment for an additional sum, this is a determination that he was not entitled to more, although there is no definite finding of the value of the services. 2. In determining the value of services rendered the Choctaw Nation, the Court of Claims was not bound by opinions of the Choctaw legislature or executive officers. Mr. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 3, 1927. MAGUIRE & COMPANY v. UNITED STATES [59 C. Cls. 575; 273 U. S. 671 Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding: 1. In a sale of cloth by the Government, a description, accompanying the advertisement for bids and giving the weight per yard, is Syllabus not a warranty, when bidders are invited to inspect the goods before bidding and notified that bids subject to inspection will not be received. Mr. JUSTICE SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 3, 1927. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY v. UNITED STATES [60 C. Cls. 486; 273 U. S. 100] Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was reversed, the Supreme Court deciding: 66 1. In the provision in the revenue acts of 1918 and 1921, imposing a stamp tax of 2 cents per $100 of face value or fraction thereof " on transfers of the legal title to shares or certificates of stock, "face value" is synonymous with par value. The par value fixed by the corporate charter at the time of transfer of a certificate is the true par value and must control, in assessment of the tax, over any different par value stated on the face of the certificate. Mr. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 3, 1927. JACOB REED'S SONS v. UNITED STATES [60 C. Cls. 97; 273 U. S. 200] Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding: 1. The Dent Act (March 2, 1919) gave no cause of action on contracts made without authority, or on dealings which did not ripen into a contract. Mr. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 24, 1927. |