Case Name: PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1913-04-07
Citations: 40 App. D.C. 260
Docket Number: No. 2485
Parties: PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 40
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES.
Eminent Domain; Condemnation oe Land; Appeal and Error; Appraisers.
On appeal to this court in condemnation proceedings instituted under act of Congress of June 25th, 1910 (36 Stat. at L. 738, chap. 384), where the evidence relating to the value of the property in question upon examination discloses no reversible error, and the award is supported by sufficient evidence to justify the verdict, and there is no showing of prejudice or corruption on the part of the appraisers, there is noth ing to bring the issues of fact into review. (Citing Sewfferle v. M<wfwrland, 28 App. D. C. 94, 101.)
No. 2485.
Submitted March 7, 1913.
Decided April 7, 1913.
HeaRINg oil an appeal by tbe exceptant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District' of Columbia confirming the award of a commission appointed to condemn certain real estate for the use of the United States.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. McNeill & McNeill for the appellant.
Mr. Reeves T. Strichland, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. O. R. Wilson, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Hr. Justice YaN Orsdel
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the supreme court of the District of Columbia confirming the verdict of a jury in a condemnation proceeding instituted under the act of Congress of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. at L. 738, chap. 384).
We have examined the evidence relating to the value of the property in question, and find no reversible error. The award is supported by sufficient evidence to justify the verdict, and, in the absence of any showing of prejudice or corruption on the part of the appraisers, there is nothing to bring the issues: of fact into review. Seufferle v. Macfarland, 28 App. D. C. 94, 101; Mills, Condemnation, 246.
The questions of law presented are the same as were considered in Whitford v. United States, ante, 14. The opinion in that case, therefore, is controlling here.
The judgment is affirmed with costs, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.