Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/329/585
Timestamp: 2018-01-18 22:03:49
Document Index: 322535864

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 177', '§ 177', '§ 177', '§ 284', '§ 6', '§ 106', '§ 106']

UNITED STATES v. THAYER-WEST POINT HOTEL CO. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
329 U.S. 585 (67 S.Ct. 398, 91 L.Ed. 521)
The decision here turns upon the power of the Court of Claims, in light of § 177(a) of the Judicial Code, 1 to include interest in its award of 'just compensation' to a lessee for the construction of a hotel and other buildings pursuant to the provisions of the Act of March 30, 1920. 2
On October 17, 1924, the Secretary of War duly made a lease under this Act to one Williams for a period of 50 years. The lease provided, among other things, that it might be cancelled at any time by the Secretary if the lessee should fail to observe all the covenants and conditions in the lease. One of the covenants was that the lessee was to 'keep the said hotel open for business every day during the continuance of this lease, except at such times as permission to close may be given in writing by the Superintendent, U.S.M.A.' Upon a cancellation of the lease, 'just compensation' was to be paid to the lessee for the construction of the hotel, appurtenances and equipment, and title thereto was to pass at once to the United States. Similar provisions were made in connection with the termination of the lease on the expiration of the 50-year term. The lease also set forth numerous restrictions and requirements as to the operation of the hotelsuch restrictions and requirements being primarily for the benefit of the Military Academy.
Here neither the Act of March 30, 1920, nor the lease under which respondent operated contains an express provision for the payment of interest, either in addition to or as a part of the 'just compensation' to be paid to respondent. If the United States had desired to provide by statute or to contract in the lease for the payment of interest, it would have been easy to have said so in express terms. 3 Because it did not say so, we are led irresistibly to the conclusion that it did not intend to negative the effect of § 177(a) in this instance. Tillson v. United States, supra.
Congress has expressly provided for the payment of interest in other instances. See Judicial Code, § 177(b), 28 U.S.C. 284(b), 28 U.S.C.A. § 284(b); Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 649, 654, § 6(f), 41 U.S.C., Supp. V. § 106(f), 41 U.S.C.A. § 106(f).