Phillips v. United States
| Decision Date | 26 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8651.,8651. |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Norman M. Littell, J. Edward Williams, Vernon L. Wilkinson, Roger P. Marquis, and Ralph S. Boyd, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., and J. Albert Woll and Clarence W. Beatty, Jr., both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Thomas C. Donovan and Charles E. Loy, both of Chicago, Ill. (Samuel K. Markman and John P. Sullivan, both of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
Before SPARKS, MAJOR, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves an action brought under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (20), to recover the value of plaintiff's alleged oral lease of certain farm lands. The court tried the case without a jury, found the issues against the defendant, assessed the damages at $1,000 and entered judgment thereon, from which defendant appealed.
It appears that Michael and Maria Riley owned a farm in Will County, Illinois, and that on May 28, 1941, for the purpose of condemning the farm for military purposes, the United States Government filed a petition in which the Rileys were named defendants. A jury found the just compensation for the land and judgment was entered on the verdict. The judgment was satisfied by the payment of $26,000 into the registry of the court. After the $26,000 was deposited the Rileys petitioned the court for distribution of the funds. In their petition they asserted that there were no liens against the property; that they were the sole owners of the land; and that they were entitled to receive all of the money deposited. The court ordered payment of the $26,000 to the Rileys.
On December 23, 1942, five months after the $26,000 had been paid to the Rileys, plaintiff filed his complaint in this case, alleging that by an oral agreement with the Rileys he had leased the land; that the lease commenced March 1, 1941, and ran for one year; that defendant commenced an eminent domain proceeding to condemn the land — to which Phillips was not made a party defendant — and filed the declaration of taking; and that he was dispossessed and prevented from farming the land. Defendant pleaded the condemnation proceedings and judgment in bar.
At the trial plaintiff testified that he had leased the land by an oral agreement from March 1, 1941, to February 28, 1942; that by the agreement Riley was to bear half of the costs of seed and other similar items in return for half of the crops produced; that he had not lived upon the land nor had he farmed the land in 1941, but that in the fall of 1940 he had plowed 50 acres for corn and had spread 25 or 30 loads of fertilizer.
It also appears that in the course of the condemnation proceedings defendant had had the title to the land examined and an inspection made of the land to ascertain the names of all persons in possession in order that such parties, if any, could be made defendants and that the inspection disclosed that the only persons in possession of the land were the Rileys, the record owners of the land. The record further discloses that in the condemnation proceeding plaintiff testified as a witness for the Rileys and that before the award had been disbursed he had been advised to intervene in the proceedings and assert any claim he might have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulcher v. U.S.
...does not preclude such relief. Rule 54(c).6 See, e. g., Screven v. United States, 207 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1953); Phillips v. United States, 151 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1945); United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, 40 F.Supp. 436 (D.Md.1941).7 This issue was raised but not decided in In re Davi......
-
State, By and Through State Highway Commission v. Burk
...100; Herr v. Board of Education, 82 N.J.L. 610, 83 A. 173; In re Allen St. and First Ave., 256 N.Y. 236, 176 N.E. 377; Phillips v. United States, 7 Cir., 151 F.2d 645; United States v. 25.936 Acres of Land, 3 Cir., 153 F.2d 277; Ross v. Elizabethtown & S. R. Co., 20 N.J.L. 230; State by You......
-
Thibodo v. United States
...Paul, 8 Cir., 1933, 65 F.2d 119; United States v. Certain Lands in Borough of Brooklyn, 2 Cir., 1942, 129 F.2d 577; Phillips v. United States, 7 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 645; Board of Directors of Red River Levee Dist. No. 1 of Lafayette County, Arkansas v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 8 Cir.,......
-
Sutcliffe Storage & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 4238-4241.
...96 U.S. 430, 24 L.Ed 703; St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 169, 176, 45 S.Ct. 472, 69 L.Ed. 472; Phillips v. United States, 7 Cir., 151 F.2d 645. The case of Oliver v. United States, 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 727, relied on by the plaintiff, asserts no doctrine to the contrary. T......