Talbert v. United States United States v. Talbert
| Decision Date | 15 October 1894 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 24 and 25,s. 24 and 25 |
| Citation | 39 L.Ed. 64,155 U.S. 45,15 S.Ct. 4 |
| Parties | TALBERT v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. TALBERT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
S. S. Henkle, for appellant.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.
This was a suit brought in the court of claims under an act of congress entitled 'An act for the relief of William Talbert,' approved June 30, 1886, and reading as follows: 'That the claim of William Talbert, of Moutgomery county, Maryland, for the use by the government of his patented improvement for marine railways, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the court of claims, with authority to take jurisdiction thereof, and to award judgment thereon, as the merits of the case may demand, according to its value to the government during the existence of such patent.' 24 Stat. 822, c. 591.
The court filed findings of fact and a conclusion of law; rendered an opinion, reported in 25 Ct. Cl. 141; and gave judgment in claimant's favor for $6,564.30, from which both parties appealed, but argument is waived by the government on its cross appeal. Among the findings of fact was the following: '(8) The value to the government of plaintiff's patented improvement for marine railways during the existence of his patent was $6,564.30, being 2 per cent. upon the amount earned by the railway cradle as improved during said period.' On this appeal, only questions of law can be reviewed, and none such are presented for our consideration. The contention is that the sum awarded was far less than it should have been; but the eighth finding was one of fact, and there is nothing in the other findings or elsewhere in the record which authorizes us to go behind that finding and conclude that there was error in respect thereof.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks
-
Farrand Optical Co. v. United States
......28 U.S. C. § 1346; United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 258 U.S. 321, 42 S.Ct. 334, 66 L.Ed. 639 (1922); Talbert v. United States, 25 Ct.Cl. 141 (1890), aff'd, 155 U.S. 45, 15 S.Ct. 4, 39 L.Ed. 64 (1894); Cygnet Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 60 Ct.Cl. 840 ......
-
Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Shane, 9510.
...delay on the part of the government in approving the contract.' This finding, like one of reasonable value (Talbert v. United States, 155 U. S. 45, 46, 15 S. Ct. 4, 39 L. Ed. 64), is a finding of an ultimate fact by which this court is bound, unless it appears that the finding was made with......
-
United States v. New York
...is taken, their finding is final. Stone v. U. S., 164 U. S. 380, 17 Sup. Ct. 71; Desmore v. U. S., 93 U. S. 605; Talbert v. U. S., 155 U. S. 45, 15 Sup. Ct. 4. And in McClure v. U. S., 116 U. S. 145, 6 Sup. Ct. 321, this court distinctly held that it would not remand a case to the court of ......