United States v. Point Hotel Co, THAYER-WEST
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MURPHY |
| Citation | 67 S.Ct. 398,91 L.Ed. 521,329 U.S. 585 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. POINT HOTEL CO |
| Docket Number | No. 106,THAYER-WEST |
| Decision Date | 20 January 1947 |
v.
THAYER-WEST POINT HOTEL CO.
Mr.
Oscar H. Davis, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Page 586
Mr.E. J. Ellenwood, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The decision here turns upon the power of the Court of Claims, in light of § 177(a) of the Judicial Code,1 to include interest in its award of 'just compensation' to a lessee for the construction of a hotel and other buildings pursuant to the provisions of the Act of March 30, 1920.2
The act of March 30, 1920, authorizes the Secretary of War to lease land on the United States Military Reservation at West Point, N.Y., to any person for a term not exceeding 50 years upon which to erect a hotel and other necessary buildings in connection therewith. The lease is to contain such conditions, terms, reservations and covenants as may be agreed upon and is to provide 'for just compensation to the lessees for the construction of said hotel, appurtenances, and equipments, to be paid to said lessees at the termination of said lease.'
On October 17, 1924, the Secretary of War duly made a lease under this Act to one Williams for a period of 50 years. The lease provided, among other things, that it might be cancelled at any time by the Secretary if the lessee should fail to observe all the covenants and conditions in the lease. One of the covenants was that the lessee was to 'keep the said hotel open for business every day during the continuance of this lease, except at such times as permission to close may be given in writing by the Superintendent, U.S.M.A.' Upon a cancellation of the lease, 'just compensation' was to be paid to the lessee for the construction of the hotel, appurtenances and equipment, and title thereto was to pass at once to the United States.
Page 587
Similar provisions were made in connection with the termination of the lease on the expiration of the 50-year term. The lease also set forth numerous restrictions and requirements as to the operation of the hotel—such restrictions and requirements being primarily for the benefit of the Military Academy.
The lease was assigned to a corporation and a hotel and other buildings were subsequently erected. Through a series of events which need not be detailed here, the respondent took over the leasehold and the hotel properties in 1930 with the approval of the Superintendent of the Military Academy. Respondent began operating the hotel on January 1, 1931, and continued under the terms of the lease until March 10, 1943.
On January 5, 1943, respondent wrote to the Secretary of War that conditions then existing made continued operation of the hotel impossible and that to avoid a curtailment of operations or a closing down of the hotel 'the properties should be owned and operated by the Government.' It was accordingly suggested that the Secretary declare the lease forfeited upon the closing of the hotel by respondent, a default contemplated by the lease. The Secretary agreed to this proposal. The respondent then gave notice of its intention to close the hotel on the morning of March 10, 1943. The agents of the Secretary immediately took over the possession, management and operation of the hotel on March 10 and shortly thereafter the Secretary declared the lease annulled.
The parties were unable to agree on the amount of 'just compensation' due under the lease. Respondent then brought this suit in the Court of Claims, praying for a judgment in the sum of $1,932.000. That court found that the 'total of just compensation to the plaintiff for construction of the hotel, its appurtenances, and equipments, is therefore $867,682, as of March 10, 1943.' 64
Page 588
F.Supp. 565, 568. The court then added interest at the rate of 4% per annum from March 10, 1943, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown & Williamson, Ltd. v. United States, No. 39-81T.
...and it must be strictly construed. Tillson v. United States, 100 U.S. 43 25 L.Ed. 543; United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co. 329 U.S. 585, 67 S.Ct. 398, 91 L.Ed. 521 * * * * * * Had Congress desired to permit the recovery of interest in situations where the Court of Claims felt it ju......
-
California v. United States, No. 17-206C
...statute or expressly provided by affirmative agreement of the United States in a contract. See United States v. Thayer-W. Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 590 (1947) (finding that interest waiving provisions "must be affirmative, clear-cut, unambiguous"); England v. Contel Advanced Sys., Inc.......
-
Richerson v. Jones, No. 76-1762
...States v. Tillamooks,341 U.S. 48, 49, 71 S.Ct. 552, 552, 95 L.Ed. 738 (1951). See also United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 588, 67 S.Ct. 398, 91 L.Ed. 521 (1947); United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 518 F.2d 1309, 1315 (Ct.Cl.1975); Contra Costa County Flood Con......
-
United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co United States v. Potter United States v. Erreca United States v. James Stevinson United States v. Stevinson United States v. 8212 Securities Co, Nos. 4
...is made for it. United States v. Goltra, 312 U.S. 203, 207, 61 S.Ct. 487, 490, 85 L.Ed. 776; United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 588, 67 S.Ct. 398, 399, 91 L.Ed. 521. A different rule obtains when the United States takes property protected by the Fifth Amendment. Sea......
-
Brown & Williamson, Ltd. v. United States, No. 39-81T.
...and it must be strictly construed. Tillson v. United States, 100 U.S. 43 25 L.Ed. 543; United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co. 329 U.S. 585, 67 S.Ct. 398, 91 L.Ed. 521 * * * * * * Had Congress desired to permit the recovery of interest in situations where the Court of Claims felt it ju......
-
California v. United States, No. 17-206C
...statute or expressly provided by affirmative agreement of the United States in a contract. See United States v. Thayer-W. Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 590 (1947) (finding that interest waiving provisions "must be affirmative, clear-cut, unambiguous"); England v. Contel Advanced Sys., Inc.......
-
Richerson v. Jones, No. 76-1762
...States v. Tillamooks,341 U.S. 48, 49, 71 S.Ct. 552, 552, 95 L.Ed. 738 (1951). See also United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 588, 67 S.Ct. 398, 91 L.Ed. 521 (1947); United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 518 F.2d 1309, 1315 (Ct.Cl.1975); Contra Costa County Flood Con......
-
United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co United States v. Potter United States v. Erreca United States v. James Stevinson United States v. Stevinson United States v. 8212 Securities Co, Nos. 4
...is made for it. United States v. Goltra, 312 U.S. 203, 207, 61 S.Ct. 487, 490, 85 L.Ed. 776; United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 588, 67 S.Ct. 398, 399, 91 L.Ed. 521. A different rule obtains when the United States takes property protected by the Fifth Amendment. Sea......