The contract implied from a taking by the government is a
contract to pay for the property actually taken. P.
254 U. S.
232.
Where construction of a government dam flooded private land,
destroyed the owner's hay there stored, and forced him to remove
and sell his cattle,
held, assuming an implied obligation
to pay for the hay, there was none to pay the loss due to forced
sale of the cattle and destruction of business.
Id.
To review a judgment of the Court of Claims, the government must
appeal; it cannot attack it on the claimant's appeal. P.
254 U. S. 233.
54 Ct.Clms. 203 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 254 U. S. 232
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants owned and utilized in their business of stock raising
a large tract of land lying in Sweetwater Valley, Wyoming. In June,
1909, much hay was stored upon the land and a thousand head of
cattle were there confined. Under the Reclamation Act of June 17,
1902, c. 1093, 32 Stat. 389, the United States constructed the
Pathfinder Dam. This arrested the floodwaters and caused inundation
of appellants' lands. The hay was destroyed, and it became
necessary to remove the animals and sell them at prices below their
fair value.
Proceedings to condemn the land were instituted by the appellee,
in the United States Circuit Court for Wyoming before the overflow.
It is said the right to enter was not acquired until thereafter.
The value of the land was ascertained and paid, but the court
denied appellants' claim for the hay and for loss consequent upon
forced sale of the cattle and destruction of the business. No
appeal was taken. The present suit was instituted to recover for
the items so disallowed. The court below gave judgment for value of
the hay only, and the cause is here upon claimants' appeal.
Certainly appellants' position in respect of the items in
question is no better than it would have been if no condemnation
proceedings had been instituted. In the circumstances supposed,
there might have been a recovery
"for what actually has been taken, upon the principle that the
government, by the very act of taking, impliedly has promised to
make compensation because the dictates of
Page 254 U. S. 233
justice and the terms of the Fifth Amendment so require."
United States v. Cress, 243 U.
S. 316,
243 U. S. 329.
But nothing could have been recovered for destruction of business
of loss sustained through enforced sale of the cattle. There was no
actual taking of these things by the United States, and
consequently no basis for an implied promise to make compensation.
We need not consider the effect of the judgment in the condemnation
proceedings.
It is suggested that, although the United States did not appeal,
they may now contest the judgment upon the ground that there was no
contractual obligation to make compensation for the hay. "Without
an appeal, a party will not be heard in an appellate court to
question the correctness of the decree of the trial court."
Cherokee Nation v. Blackfeather, 155 U.
S. 218,
155 U. S. 221.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.