Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES v. TRUESDELL, 1893 — 148 U.S. 196 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. TRUESDELL
148 U.S. 19637 L. Ed. 419·Supreme Court of the United States·1893
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES v. TRUESDELL.
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS.
No. 552.
Submitted January 9, 1893.
Decided March 6, 1893,
Tkis case is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Alexander, ante, 186.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Solicitor General Gotton for appellants.
Mr. Job Barnard and Mr. George A. King for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Me. Justice Siiiras]
Me. Justice Siiiras
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was brought in the Court of Claims to recover damages for the loss of a well, occasioned by the construction of an extension of the Washington Aqueduct, and for compensation for a right of way across land of the complainant, taken for the purpose of constructing a tunnel, by virtue of an act of Congress of July 15, 1882, entitled “An act to increase the. water supply of the city of Washington and for other purposes.” 22 S tat. 168, c. 29é.
So far as the recovery of the plaintiff below was based on the claim for compensation for land actually taken, the United States do not, in this appeal, complain. But they contend that the injury caused by the déstruction of the well was damnum absque injuria. The liability of the. United States, under the statute by virtue of which the work in question was done and the damages occasioned, has been declared in the opinion of this court in the casé, just decided, of' the United States v. Alexander, ante, 186, where the facts were similar, and we do not need to repeat whát is therein said.
The judgment of the court below is accordingly
Affirmed.