Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/256/547/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-09-20 22:27:57
Document Index: 650606837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 24', '§ 128', '§ 10', '§ 24']

UNITED STATES V. PFITSCH, 256 U. S. 547 (1921) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 256 > UNITED STATES V. PFITSCH, 256 U. S. 547 (1921)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 256 U. S. 547
Section 10 of the Lever Act (August 10, 1917, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276, 279), providing that any person dissatisfied with the President's award for supplies requisitioned under that section shall receive 75% of the award and may sue the United States for the balance claimed, confers jurisdiction on the district court "to hear and determine all such controversies," while other sections of the act providing for requisition chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Pursuant to § 10 of the Lever Act (Act Aug. 10, 1917, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276, 279), the President requisitioned for the army on April 18, 1918, a radial drill belonging to Pfitsch. The Board of Appraisers of the War Department found its then value to be $3,979.50, and awarded him that amount as compensation. Pfitsch declared this amount was unsatisfactory, and insisted that the value was greater, and that he was entitled also to interest from the date of the taking. On February 5, 1919, the government paid him an amount equal to 75 percentum of the award. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The preliminary question arises whether this Court has jurisdiction on direct writ of error. The answer to be given to it depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred upon the district court by § 10 of the Lever Act. If the jurisdiction is to be exercised in the manner provided by § 24, paragraph 20, of the Judicial Code, which confers upon the district court jurisdiction concurrent with the court of Claims, a direct writ of error lies from this Court. J. Homer Fritch, Inc. v. United States, 248 U. S. 458. If however, the jurisdiction is the ordinary jurisdiction of the district court, the writ of error should have gone, in the first instance, from the circuit court of appeals under § 128 of the Judicial Code. The nature of the jurisdiction of the district court is of importance not only because of the question directly involved, but because the answer given to it will determine incidentally whether plaintiffs who proceed under § 10 are entitled to a trial by jury, for § 24, paragraph 20, of the Judicial Code declares that "all suits brought and tried under the provisions of this paragraph shall be tried by the court without a jury." See United States v. McGrane, 270 F.7d 1; Filbin Corp. v. United States, 266 F.9d 1.
Section 10 provides that the President may requisition foods, feeds, fuels, and other war supplies with the necessary storage facilities, and that he shall ascertain and pay chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The legislative history of the Lever Act establishes that chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
65th Congress, 1st Sess. House Report No. 117, p. 14; 55 Cong.Rec. 5737. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
A survey of the war legislation permitting the seizure of property discloses that congress has established three distinct jurisdictions for the purpose of suit against the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
United States for compensation. In 17 instances, [Footnote 1] it definitely provided by reference to the appropriate sections of the Judicial Code for concurrent jurisdiction in the Court of Claims and the district courts sitting as a court of claims. In the four instances above set forth it conferred jurisdiction only on the district courts. In four instances, it conferred jurisdiction only on the Court of Claims. [Footnote 2] The established rule of statutory construction should lead us to give effect in every practicable manner to the distinctions which Congress has seen fit to make. Compare Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Lederer, 252 U. S. 523, 252 U. S. 533. And where it designates a chanroblesvirtualawlibrary