Schaeffer v. United States, 49100.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 49100.,49100. |
| Citation | 86 F. Supp. 145,114 Ct. Cl. 568 |
| Parties | SCHAEFFER et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Solomon Dimond, New York City, for plaintiffs.
John F. Ganong, Washington, D. C., General H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HOWELL, MADDEN, WHITAKER and LITTLETON, Judges.
Plaintiffs allege that they were the owners of a completely equipped ocean-going yacht, the Panzola II; that on August 11, 1942, it, including equipment, furniture and fixtures, was requisitioned by the War Shipping Administration; that its reasonable and just market value on that date was $30,000; that it would require that amount to afford just compensation to plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs submitted their claim with supporting data to the War Shipping Administration which agency determined that plaintiffs were entitled to $7,000 as just compensation for the yacht, furniture, fixtures and equipment; that the plaintiffs advised the War Shipping Administration that the sum was wholly unsatisfactory.
On or about May 25, 1944, the plaintiffs and the War Shipping Administration agreed that plaintiffs would be paid $5,250 (75 per cent of the amount determined) and the plaintiffs reserved the right to sue for the balance. The sum of $5,250 was paid to the plaintiffs on June 9, 1944. The plaintiffs sue for the difference, plus interest, between that amount and $30,000, which they allege to have been the value of the yacht at the time of the taking. Suit was filed April 4, 1949.
Defendant demurs on the ground that the statute of limitations commenced to run on August 11, 1942, and as plaintiffs did not file their petition until April 4, 1949, this court has no jurisdiction by the terms of 28 U.S.C.A. § 262 now § 2501, six years having elapsed after the claim first accrued and before the filing of the suit.
It is plaintiffs' contention that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies. They cite portions of 46 U.S.C.A. § 1242, and assert that since both parties had elected to proceed under this statute its provisions should govern.
We agree with the position taken by the plaintiffs.
Section 1242(a), 46 U.S.C.A. reads in part as follows: "* * * When any such property or the use thereof is so requisitioned, the owner thereof shall be paid just compensation for the property taken or for the use of such property, * * *."
Section 1242(d) 46 U.S.C.A. contains the following language:
Congress by the terms of the act just quoted provided for the requisitioning of needed vessels. It provided a method of payment for such vessels. It is desirable that such procedure be followed....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friedman v. United States
... ... United States, 31 Ct.Cl. 148, 150, 157 (administrative determination relating to informer's award). More recent cases are Schaeffer and Robbins v. United States, 114 Ct.Cl. 568, 570, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 854, 73 S.Ct. 90, (determination by Maritime Commission of just ... ...
-
NV PHILIPS'GLOEILAMPENFABRIEKEN v. Atomic Energy Com'n
...Taylor, 104 U.S. (14 Otto) 216, 26 L.Ed. 721 (1881); Gibbs Corporation v. United States, 127 Ct.Cl. 280 (1954); Schaeffer v. United States, 86 F.Supp. 145, 114 Ct.Cl. 568 (1949); John Russell Smith v. United States, 67 Ct.Cl. 182 Since the Act was deficient with respect to a statute of limi......
-
LATVIAN STATE CARGO & PASS. ST. LINE v. United States
...and that this court has no jurisdiction until this has been done. Defendant relies alone on our decision in Schaffer et al. v. United States, 1949, 86 F.Supp. 145, but in that case we did not decide the question here involved. It would seem, however, that it is within the power of Congress ......
-
Tan v. United States, 50277.
...1949, during which time her claim was pending before the Army Claims Service. Plaintiff relies on the cases of Schaeffer et al. v. United States, 86 F.Supp. 145, 114 Ct.Cl. 568, and Smith v. United States, 67 Ct.Cl. 182, where Congress had specifically provided an administrative procedure t......