Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533 (1926)
Luckenbach Steamship Company v. United States
No. 32
Argued March 11, 12, 1926
Decided November 23, 1926
272 U.S. 533
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
Syllabus
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. P. 534
2. Time did not run against the right to appeal while the motion for new trial and amended findings was pending. P. 535.
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. P. 536.
4. Under the law and rules governing the subject, review of judgments 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. P. 537.
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. P. 539.
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. P. 540.
7. Evidential and plainly subordinate matter is inappropriate to a finding of ultimate facts. P. 540.
8. A finding of the value of property taken by the government held a finding of fact, and not reviewable. P. 540.
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. P. 541.
10. Where an owner of boat 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 three-fourth of it, under the Act, and sue for more, but recovered only the additional fourth which he had declined to accept, he was not entitled under the Fifth Amendment to interest on such deferred compensation. P. 541.
59 Ct.Cls. 628 affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims rejecting a claim for a balance alleged to be due appellant on several barges and tugs which were taken over by the government under the Act of June 15, 1917.