TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Highsmith

United States v. Highsmith, 255 U.S. 170 (1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 28, 1921
Docket
No. 148
Judges
Day
Citations
255 U.S. 17041 S. Ct. 28265 L. Ed. 5691921 U.S. LEXIS 1809
Syllabus
Decided on the authority of United States v. Rogers, ante, 163.
Summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRQUIT. The case is stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Day

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is like No. 147, ¡just decided, ante, 163, and was argued and submitted at the same time.

In this instance the Government and the landowner appealed from the award of the commissioners, and the case was tried to a jury. Jurors were instructed that the allowance of interest was a mattér of law, and in. a form *171 of verdict given to them, interest at 6 per cent, was to. be added from April 19, 1912, the date of appropriation.

It appears that by agreement a separate order requiring the deposit of interest was entered in order to allow a writ of error upon that point, and in connection with the above form of verdict the jurors were instructed to assess compensation as of the value of the land on April 19,1912, and not to add interest from that time to the date of the verdict. Afterwards a final judgment was entered in the District Court requiring a deposit of the amount of the verdict, and a separate order was made directing payment of interest from April 19, 1912. A writ of error was prosecuted from the Circuit Court of Appeals where the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. 257 Fed. Rep. 401.

The Circuit Court of Appeals recited, the facts of the case, and held that it was ruled by United States v. Rogers, No. 147, just decided. We agree with this conclusion, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1922: 11938: 11939: 11941: 11968: 11972: 12022: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list