UNITED STATES
v.
GRANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Grant & Co. obtained a judgment from the Court of Claims in 1869, and Congress later passed an act in 1883 directing the court to reopen and readjudicate the case to correct an alleged error in the original judgment amount. The Supreme Court held that no appeal lay from the readjudication judgment because Congress intended the Court of Claims' action to be final, as the correction was merely an amendment to the original judgment rather than a new judgment subject to appellate review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chiep Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
. Grant & Co. sued the United States in the Court of Claims on the 2d of December, 1868, and on the 6th of December, 1869, recovered a judgment for $34,225.14. On the 5th of January, 1883, the following act was passed by Congress;
“ Be it enacted. . . . That the Court of Claims be, and it is hereby, directed to reopen and readjudieate'the case of Albert Grant and Darius Jackson . . . upon the evidence heretofore submitted to the said court in said causé . . . , and if said court in such readjudication shall find from such evidence that the court gave judgment for a different sum than the evidence sustains or the court intended, it shall correct such error and adjudge to the said Albert Grant such additional sum in said cause as the evidence shall justify, not to exceed fourteen thousand „and sixteen dollars and twenty-nine cents ; and the amount by readjudication in favor of the said Albert Grant shall be a part of the original'judgment in the cause recorded in the fifth Court of Claims report, page eighty.”
Under this act Grant, on the 13th of January, 1883, applied to the court to re-examine the case and to render a judgment nunc pro tuno for the. additional sum of $14,016.29. Upon •.this application, the court, on due consideration, found that the original judgment was given for a different sum than was intended, and that, “ in order to correct such error and adjudge to said Albert Grant such additional sum in this cause as the evidence justifies, he should receive.a further sum of $14,016.29,” and on the 11th of June, 1883, a judgment for that amount was'rendered. From this judgment the United States took an appeal, which Grant now moves to dismiss on the ground that no appeal lies from an order or judgment entered in such a proceeding.
In our opinion, this motion should be granted. The act of Congress, in its legal effect, is nothing more than a direction to the Court of Claims to entertain an application to correct, an error in the entry of one of its former judgments. The readjudication ordered is to be upon the old evidence, and, if an error is found, the correction is to be made, not by rendering a new judgment, but by amending the old one. The language is, “ and the amount by readjudication in favor of the said Albert Grant shall be á part of the original judgment.” As, when the act was passed, an appeal from the original judgment was barred by lapse of time, we are satisfied it was the intention of Congress to make the action of the Court of Claims upon this readjudication final. Certainly the old judgment is not opened to an appeal by the readjudication, and there is nothing to indicate that the new part of the judgment can be separated from the old for the purposes of review here. By the correction the new judgment was merged in the old.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1980)…ses, in addition to those discussed in the text, that have recognized or acted upon Congress’ power to waive the defense of res judicata to claims against the United States follows (the list is not intended to be exhaustive): United States v. Grant, 110 U. S. 225 (1884); Lamborn & Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 703, 724-728, 65 F. Supp. 569, 576-578 (1946); Menominee Tribe v. United States, 101 Ct. Cl. 10, 19 (1944); Richardson v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 948, 956-957 (1935); Delaware Tribe v. United Sta…
-
Cherokee Nation v. United States, 270 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1926)…g the Government, properly concedes this to be the correct view. The power of Congress to waive such an adjudication of course is clear. See Nock v. United States, 2 Ct. Cls. 451; Braden v. United States, 16 Ct. Cls. 389, and United States v. Grant, 110 U. S. 225. Compare United States v. Realty Company, 163 U. S. 427; Allen v. Smith, 173 U. S. 389, 393, 402; United States v. Cook, 257 U. S. 523, 527; Work v. United States ex rel. Rives, 267 U. S. 175, 181; Mitchell v. United States, 267 U. S. 341, 346. The…
-
Alexander v. United States and nine other cases, 173 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1949)…e. No allowance was necessary. We have found no case holding that a judge of a court of appeals has power to make such orders as Judge Denman’s orders of November 1 and 2, 1948. There was no such holding in Peugh v. Davis, 110 U.S. 227, 4 S.Ct. 17, 28 L.Ed. 127; In re Claasen, 140 U.S. 200,11 S.Ct. 735, 35 L.Ed. 409; In re McKenzie, 180 U.S. 536, 21 S.Ct. 468, 45 L.Ed. 657; Tornanses v. Melsing, 9 Cir., 106 F. 775; Tinkoff v. United States, 7 Cir., 86 F. 2d 868, or in any of the other cases cited by appell…