Kuhnert v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 12158.,12158. |
| Citation | 127 F.2d 824 |
| Parties | KUHNERT v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Louis Kranitz and Alva F. Lindsay, both of St. Joseph, Mo., for appellant.
Richard K. Phelps, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., and Charles F. Lamkin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges, and TRIMBLE, District Judge.
The question for decision is whether, upon the facts found by the court below, the appellant was entitled to judgment.
This action was brought by appellant against the United States under the authority of a Private Act of Congress, approved August 11, 1939, c. 707, 53 Stat. 1543, which conferred jurisdiction on the trial court "to hear, determine, and render judgment without interest, but with costs, under and in accordance with the same provisions of law as if the United States were a private party upon the claims" of specified claimants, including the appellant. The Act states that: "Said claims arise out of a flood allegedly resulting from the defective or improper placing and construction of dikes or revetments in the Missouri River by the War Department of the United States, at or near Bean Lake in Platte County, and Sugar Lake in Buchanan County, in the State of Missouri, in the month of March 1934." By the terms of the Act, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri was charged with the duty of defending the United States. The Act directed the payment of any final judgment by the Secretary of the Treasury, and that "such payment shall be in full settlement of all claims against the United States on account of claims arising out of such flood damage." The Act was entitled, "An Act to confer jurisdiction on the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claims of certain claimants who suffered loss by flood at or near Bean Lake in Platte County, and Sugar Lake in Buchanan County, in the State of Missouri, during the month of March 1934."
The appellant took assignments of their claims from other claimants and filed a petition in the court below, alleging that prior to March 6, 1934, the United States constructed dikes or revetments in the Missouri River adjacent to the property of the appellant and his assignors in such a way as to cause a sharp and hazardous bend in the channel of the river, and that the Government knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the danger of stopping or retarding the flow of the waters in the river and of flooding adjacent farm land. Appellant further alleged that on March 6, 1934, during a normal flow of water, the river became clogged with ice and debris as a result of the condition created by the Government structures, causing the water to back up in the river and to overflow the lands of the appellant and his assignors, to their damage. The appellant alleged that by the Private Act authorizing the action, Congress "declared the intention of the defendant United States to pay the damages caused to plaintiff appellant and his assignors upon proof that said dike, dikes or revetments were the direct and proximate cause of said flood, and that said flood resulted in damages to plaintiff's and his assignors' properties." The appellant's petition specified in detail the amount of damage caused by the flood to his property and to that of each of his assignors.
The United States in its answer admitted the construction of dikes and revetments in the Missouri River adjacent to the lands referred to in the petition, but denied that thereby a hazardous condition was created or that it had any notice or knowledge of any danger of stopping or retarding the flow of the river. The United States admitted that on March 6, 1934, an overflowing of the lands and property of the appellant and his assignors had occurred, but denied that the flood was caused by any condition created by the United States. It was asserted in the answer that the structures complained of were built by the United States in aid of navigation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anglin & Stevenson
...United States, 272 U.S. 675, 47 S.Ct. 289, 71 L.Ed. 472; Oswald Jaeger Baking Co. v. Commissioner, 7 Cir., 108 F.2d 375; Kuhnert v. United States, 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 824; United States v. Davidson, 5 Cir., 139 F. 2d 908. It is not the judicial function to administer the affairs of incompetent......
-
Melo v. U.S., 74-1169
...U.S. 484, 501, 87 S.Ct. 1188, 18 L.Ed.2d 244 (1967); Battaglia v. United States, 303 F.2d 683, 685 (2d Cir. 1962); Kuhnert v. United States, 127 F.2d 824 (8th Cir. 1942). Twenty-eight U.S.C. Ch. 171 delineates the procedure for tort claims against the United States and is controlling. Secti......
-
Peterson v. United States
...U.S. 484, 501, 87 S.Ct. 1188, 18 L.Ed.2d 244 (1967); Battaglia v. United States, 303 F.2d 683, 685 (2d Cir. 1962); Kuhnert v. United States, 127 F.2d 824 (8th Cir. 1942). 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) as amended in 1966 provides in pertinent part "An action shall not be instituted upon a claim agains......
-
Massey v. United States
...S.Ct. 284, 75 L.Ed. 598; Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 675, 686, 47 S.Ct. 289, 71 L. Ed. 472; Kuhnert v. United States, 8 Cir., 127 F.2d 824, 826. This conclusion is further sustained by the legislative history of the Act. Nor is there anything in the cases cited by ......