Case Name: ISABEL KOUNS O'PRY, SOLE DESCENDENT AND SOLE HEIR OF JOHN KOUNS, SURVIVING PARTNER OF GEORGE L. KOUNS AND JOHN KOUNS, AND CHARLES SCHNEIDAU, SUBSTITUTED ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GEORGE L. KOUNS, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1919-03-31
Citations: 54 Ct. Cl. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: ISABEL KOUNS O’PRY, SOLE DESCENDENT AND SOLE HEIR OF JOHN KOUNS, SURVIVING PARTNER OF GEORGE L. KOUNS AND JOHN KOUNS, AND CHARLES SCHNEIDAU, SUBSTITUTED ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GEORGE L. KOUNS, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 191–191

Head Matter:
ISABEL KOUNS O’PRY, SOLE DESCENDENT AND SOLE HEIR OF JOHN KOUNS, SURVIVING PARTNER OF GEORGE L. KOUNS AND JOHN KOUNS, AND CHARLES SCHNEIDAU, SUBSTITUTED ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GEORGE L. KOUNS, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[51 C. Cls., 111; 249 U. S., 323.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
The act of July 2, 1864, chapter 225, 13 Statutes, 375, section 8, providing for the purchase for the United States at designated places of the products of States declared in insurrection, at not exceeding three-fourths their New York market value, was strictly in addition, as its title declared, to the abandoned property act of 1863, and not an amendment of that act in the sense of section 162 of the Judicial Code, which gives jurisdiction to the Court of Claims over claims for property taken under the latter act and sold.
The words “ addition ” and “ amendment,” as applied to statutes, may or may not have the same meaning, according to the purpose.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 31, 1919.