In determining the amount of compensation to which respondents
were entitled after the decision of this Court in
United States
v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S. 40, the
Court of Claims entered judgment for the value of the lands as of
1855 plus interest from that date.
Held: The award of interest was erroneous, since
recovery was not grounded on a taking under the Fifth Amendment and
the relevant statute contains no provision expressly authorizing an
award of interest. Pp.
341 U. S. 4849.
115 Ct.Cl. 463, 87 F. Supp. 938, reversed.
PER CURIAM.
The facts leading to this controversy are fully set forth in
United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U. S.
40 (1946), where this Court affirmed a judgment of the
Court of Claims that certain named Indian tribes "are entitled to
recover" compensation for the taking of original Indian title by
the United States in 1855. The amount of recovery was reserved
expressly for the further proceedings which are before the Court in
this case. After the affirmance, the Court of Claims heard evidence
on the amount of recovery and entered a judgment for the value of
the lands as of 1855 plus interest from that
Page 341 U. S. 49
date. 87 F. Supp. 938, 115 Ct.Cl. 463. We granted certiorari
limited to the question presented by the award of interest. 340
U.S. 873 (1950).
It is the "traditional rule" that interest on claims against the
United States cannot be recovered in the absence of an express
provision to the contrary in the relevant statute or contract. 28
U.S.C. (Supp. III), ยง 2516(a).
United States v. Thayer-West
Point Hotel Co., 329 U. S. 585,
329 U. S. 588
(1947), and cases cited therein. This rule precludes an award of
interest even though a statute should direct an award of "just
compensation" for a particular taking.
United States v.
Goltra, 312 U. S. 203
(1941). The only exception arises when the taking entitles the
claimant to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Only in
such cases does the award of compensation include interest.
Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.
S. 299 (1923);
United States v. Thayer-West Point
Hotel Co., supra.
Looking to the former opinions in this case, we find that none
of them expressed the view that recovery was grounded on a taking
under the Fifth Amendment. And, since the applicable jurisdictional
Act, 49 Stat. 801 (1935), contains no provision authorizing an
award of interest, such award must be
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.