Case ID: us-ct-cl_48/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice White", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARY E. HUGHES v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Not reported in C. Cls. R.; 230 U. S. R., 24.]
    
      On both forties' affeals.
    
    This action .was brought to recover for two plantations destroyed in the improvement of navigation on the Mississippi as property “ talcen ” for public use. The court below renders judgment for the claimant as to one plantation and against her as to the other without an opinion, but filed the following conclusions of law:
    “(1) That the claimant is entitled to recover for the value of the Timberlake plantation described in Findings IX to XIY, inclusive, the sum of ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) on the authority of the cases of United' States v. Lynah, 118 U. S., 445; United States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S., 180; and Archer v. United States, 47 C. Cls., 248, upon the payment of which judgment the claimant is to execute a good and sufficient deed for said lands to the United States.
    “ (2) That the claimant is not entitled to recover for the value of the Wigwam plantation described in Findings XV to XX, inclusive, and her petition as to said plantation is therefore dismissed on the authority of the case of Jachson v. United States, 47 C. Cls., 579.”
    The Supreme Court decides that the claimant is not entitled to recover for either plantation, notwithstanding that the findings set forth the following facts:
    “About the year 1898 the United States surveyed and thereafter began to construct what was known as and now called the Huntington Short Line levee, a new levee, about 15 feet high, located some distance back from the old levee, behind the land of claimant, thus placing and permanently locating said Timberlake plantation between the Huntington Short Line levee and the old levee in the narrower high-water channel and bed of the river, placing an additional burden and servitude thereon and subjecting said property to more frequent and destructive overflows and the force and scouring power of the high-water current of said river. After the completion of the Huntington Short Line levee a high water came in the river during the year 1903 and because of a break in said old levee the water of said river began to flow onto and over the plantation of claimant, then located between the old levee and the Huntington Short Line levee, and remained standing on and over said land to a great depth after the high waters receded, and because of the great pressure of the water thus confined, standing against said Huntington Short Line levee, threatening its destruction by breaking through, the United States then caused the old levee to be blown up by dynamite in many places, so as to relieve the pressure of the water standing against the Huntington Short Line levee, and to save it, thus causing the water to rush over and across said land, injuring it for agricultural as well as all other purposes, greatly reducing its value.”
    
    June 16, 1913.
   Mr. Chief Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court