155 U.S. 45 - Talbert v. United States — 155 U.S. 45

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1994 · most notably Vestal v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1945), United States v. New York Indians (1899)

46 federal appellate · 6 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1APPEALS PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

¶2A finding of fact by the Court of Claims, where there is nothing in the other findings or elsewhere in the record which authorizes this court to go behind that finding and conclude that there was error in respect thereof, will not be reviewed here.

¶3The two causes were argued together. The case is stated in the opinion.

¶4Mr. S. S. HenMe for Talbert in both cases.

¶5Mr. Assistant Attorney General Oonrad for the United States.

¶6 *46Tie court declined to hear him in No. 24, and in No. 25 he submitted on his brief.

¶7The Chief Justice :

¶8This was a suit brought in the Court of Claims under an act of Congress entitled “An act for the relief of William Talbert,” approved June 30, 1886, and reading as follows: “That the claim of William Talbert, of Montgomery County, Maryland, for the use by the government of his patented improvement for marine railways be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims, with authority to take jurisdiction thereof, and to award judgment thereon, as the merits of the case may demand, according to its value to the government during the existence of such patent.” 24 Stat. 822, c. 591.

¶9The court filed findings of fact and a conclusion of law; rendered an opinion, reported in 25 C. Cl. 141; and gave judgment in claimant’s favor for $6564.30, from which both parties appealed, but argument is waived by the government on its cross-appeal. Among the findings of fact was the following: “ VTII. The value to the government of plaintiff’s patented improvement for marine railways during the existence of his patent was $6564.30, being 2 per cent upon the amount earned by the railway cradle as improved during said period.” On this appeal only questions of law can be reviewed, and none such are presented for our consideration. The contention is that the sum awarded ivas far less than it should have been. But the eighth finding was one of fact, and there is nothing in the other findings or elsewhere in the record which authorizes us to go behind that finding and conclude that there was error in respect thereof.

¶10Judgment affirmed.