Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

255 U.S. 170

United States v. Highsmith

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 17,18,1921.

Decided February 28, 1921.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1921-02-28

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRQUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Rogers · United States v. Field · United States v. Highsmith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 9–0 · Decided 1921-02-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1972

2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

40192119301940195019601970decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRQUIT.

¶2Decided on the authority of United States v. Rogers, ante, 163.

¶3257 Fed. Rep. 401, affirmed.

¶4The case is stated in the opinion.

¶5Mr. Assistant .Attorney, General Garnett, with whom Mr. Assistant Attorney General Nebeker and Mr. Charles S. Lawrence were, on the brief, for the United States.

¶6Mr. George S. Downer, for defendant in error, submitted.

¶7Mr. Justice Day

¶8delivered the opinion of the court.

¶9This case is like No. 147, ¡just decided, ante, 163, and was argued and submitted at the same time.

¶10In this instance the Government and the landowner appealed from the award of the commissioners, and the case was tried to a jury. Jurors were instructed that the allowance of interest was a mattér of law, and in. a form *171of verdict given to them, interest at 6 per cent, was to. be added from April 19, 1912, the date of appropriation.

¶11It appears that by agreement a separate order requiring the deposit of interest was entered in order to allow a writ of error upon that point, and in connection with the above form of verdict the jurors were instructed to assess compensation as of the value of the land on April 19,1912, and not to add interest from that time to the date of the verdict. Afterwards a final judgment was entered in the District Court requiring a deposit of the amount of the verdict, and a separate order was made directing payment of interest from April 19, 1912. A writ of error was prosecuted from the Circuit Court of Appeals where the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. 257 Fed. Rep. 401.

¶12The Circuit Court of Appeals recited, the facts of the case, and held that it was ruled by United States v. Rogers, No. 147, just decided. We agree with this conclusion, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is

¶13Affirmed.

/255/us/170 · .json · Public domain