Case: PORTSMOUTH HARBOR LAND & HOTEL COMPANY; CAROLINE E. PEABODY; AMORY ELIOT, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARY R. PEABODY; S. ELLERY JENNISON AND MARY M. JENNISON v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1922-12-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 58 Ct. Cl. 701
Volume: 58
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: PORTSMOUTH HARBOR LAND & HOTEL COMPANY; CAROLINE E. PEABODY; AMORY ELIOT, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARY R. PEABODY; S. ELLERY JENNISON AND MARY M. JENNISON v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 701–701

Head Matter:
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR LAND & HOTEL COMPANY; CAROLINE E. PEABODY; AMORY ELIOT, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARY R. PEABODY; S. ELLERY JENNISON AND MARY M. JENNISON v. THE UNITED STATES.
[56 C. cls. 494; 260 U.S. 327.]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was reversed, and the Supreme Court decided:
'The petition alleged that the United States, alter having several times in the past discharged its battery over petitioners’ land, reinstalled its guns with the intention of so firing them and without intention or ability to fire them otherwise, established a fire control and service upon that land, and again discharged all of the guns over and across it. A taking by the United States was alleged as a conclusion of fact from these specific acts, and damages were claimed. Held, that the taking of a servitude, and an implied contract to pay, might be inferred; and that a demurrer to the petition should not have been sustained.
"Where acts amount to a taking of property by the United States, without assertion of an adverse right, a contract to pay may be implied whether it was thought of or not.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Supreme •Court December 4, 1922.