United States v. Muschany, 13234
| Decision Date | 10 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 13234,13235.,13234 |
| Citation | 156 F.2d 196 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MUSCHANY et al. SAME v. ANDREWS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo. (J. Edward Williams, Acting Head, Lands Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., S. Russell Vandivort, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., and Roger P. Marquis and Wilma C. Martin, Attys., Department of Justice, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
William R. Gentry, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees James Karl Muschany and Vera Muschany.
Samuel M. Watson, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees William M. Andrews and Bertha L. Andrews.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
These are consolidated appeals from orders denying the government's motions to delete interest from two judgments entered in condemnation proceeding instituted for the purpose of acquiring title to lands for the Weldon Springs Ordnance Plant in St. Charles County, Missouri. The appeals also cover orders denying motions for reconsideration of the motions to modify the judgments. Prior to the institution of the condemnation proceedings, the War Department had entered into contracts with property owners, including the appellees, to purchase the lands at fixed prices. In the condemnation proceedings the appellees contended that the government was obligated to pay, as just compensation, the prices fixed by the contracts. The government asserted that the contracts were invalid. The District Court ruled that the purchase contracts were valid and that their effect was to fix the compensation to which the appellees were entitled, 46 F.Supp. 921. The judgment in No. 13,234 (Muschany) was entered October 12, 1942. The judgment in No. 13,235 (Andrews) was entered on November 5, 1942. Each of the judgments provided for interest at 6% per annum upon the amount of the award. In December, 1942, the government appealed from these judgments. This Court reversed the District Court on the ground that the purchase contracts were invalid. 139 F.2d 661. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 321 U.S. 760, 64 S.Ct. 846, 88 L.Ed. 1058, and reversed this Court, 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442, 89 L.Ed. 744, holding that the compensation recoverable by the appellees was to be determined from the contracts. Each of the cases was remanded by the Supreme Court to the District Court with directions "that such further proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the opinion and judgment of this Court Supreme Court, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had." The mandates were filed April 2, 1945.
On April 6, 1945, the government filed motions to modify the judgments by deleting the provisions with reference to the payment of interest on the awards. The court, 61 F.Supp. 199, denied the motions to modify, mainly upon the ground that the opinion and mandates of the Supreme Court precluded any modification of the judgments. The government has appealed, not from the judgments but from the order, in each case, "filed and entered July 10, 1945, overruling plaintiff's motion to modify the judgment by deleting therefrom the payment of interest in addition to the optioned amount, and from the order of the Court entered on July 31, 1945, overruling the plaintiff's motion for a new trial or rehearing of said motion to delete."
The question which the government seeks to raise on these appeals is that of the right of the appellees to have interest. That question was not argued or ruled upon by this Court or by the Supreme Court in the former appeals in these cases. If the question were reviewable on these appeals, it would be resolved in favor of the government under our decisions in Oliver v. United States, 155 F.2d 73, and United States v. Albrecht et al., 155 F.2d 77. The appellees contend that the question of interest is res judicata.
The first question to be considered is that of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. Koehler
...of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court." In United States v. Muschany, 156 F.2d 196, 197, this court set down the applicable rule as follows: "The general rule is that if a motion for rehearing or for a new trial, ......
-
In re Brigantine Beach Hotel Corp.
...Klein's Outlet, Inc. v. Lipton, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 713, 714, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 833, 71 S.Ct. 59, 95 L.Ed. 612; United States v. Muschany, 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 196, 197. Though the debtor has taken this appeal from both orders, we confine our review to the order of November 29, The debtor......
-
Railway Express Agency v. Epperson
...appeal from such an order is not an appeal from the judgment complained of nor the equivalent of such an appeal. See United States v. Muschany, 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 196, 197; St. Luke's Hospital v. Melin, 8 Cir., 172 F.2d 532; Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. v. Pender Drainage District, 8 Cir., ......
-
United States v. Stromberg
...an appeal expressed to be from the order denying the motion cannot be considered as an appeal from the final judgment. United States v. Muschany, 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 196, 197; St. Lukes Hospital v. Melin, 8 Cir., 172 F.2d 532, 533; see also, Long v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 10 Cir., 206 F.2......