
    HUGH B. HUTCHISON v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 34139.
    Decided October 16, 1922.]
    
      On the proofs.
    
    
      Eminent domain; interest. — Where plaintiffs property has been taken by the Government under eminent domain and an award has been made by a claims board under the provisions of an act of Congress, and the plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the amount of such award, accepts 75 per cent thereof and brings suit in the Court of • Claims, the court has no power under existing laws to include interest in its judgment.
    
      The Reporter’s statement of the case:
    
      Mr. WilMam B. King for the plaintiff. King <& King and Mr. Cornelius H. Bull were on the briefs.
    
      Messrs. Frank B. Crosthwaite and H. H. Martin, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. Prior to November 4, 1918, plaintiff was owner in fee simple of certain real estate located in Prince William County, Virginia, consisting of about 3,152 acres, and of unimproved lots in the town of Quantico, Virginia, as recorded in the land records of Prince William County, Virginia : Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 in block 2, section B; lots 1, 2, and 3, block 3, section B, the northeastern one-half of block 9, first addition to section B.
    II. The President of the United States, under authority of the act of Congress of July 1, 1918, 40 Stat. 724, 738, by proclamation dated November 4, 1918, 40 Stat., part 2, pp. 1874, 1880, described by metes and bounds certain lands to be acquired by the United States for military purposes at Quantico, Virginia, such description including all the lands belonging to the plaintiff as set forth in Finding I. By the same proclamation, and in further pursuance of the authority conferred by the act aforesaid, the President took title to all the lands belonging to plaintiff as described in Finding I and authorized the Secretary of the Navy to take possession thereof for and in behalf of the United States.
    III. Pursuant to the said statute and proclamation a single award was made in favor of the plaintiff for $77,060, no attempt being made to show what valuations had been assigned to the several separate items of acreage and town lots property.
    IV. The amount awarded by the board, acting for the President, as just compensation, as set forth in Finding III, was not satisfactory to the plaintiff, and on March 4, 1919, he declined to accept same.
    Thereafter, on May 10, 1919, he received, as provided by law, seventy-five per centum of the amount awarded, amounting to the sum of $57,795, which is all that he has been paid for the land and lots taken by the Government for military purposes as set forth in Finding II.
    V. The reasonable and fair value of 3,152 acres of land was $68,100 on. November 4, 1918. The reasonable and fair value of the town lots was $12,600 on the same date.
    VI. No compensation was paid by the United States to plaintiff for the occupation of the land taken by the Government either by way of interest or rent for the period between the date of the taking, November 4, 1918, and the date of payment of the award, May 10, 1919, or thereafter. The interest at 6 per cent upon the sum of $57,795 from November 4, 1918, to May 10, 1919, is $1,791.65, and upon $22,905 from November 4, 1918, to August 31, 1921, is $2,519.72.
    VII. The plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and has at all times borne true allegiance to the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the United States.
   Per curiam.

The plaintiff in this suit is claiming interest on the sum of money found to be due him by the Government for the property taken from him, and in support of that claim cites the court to the case of United States v. Rogers, 255 U. S. 163. In that case the court says: “ It is unquestionably true that the United States upon claims made against it can not, in the absence of a statute to that end, be subjected to the payment of interest.” And further, “In the present case thé landowners did not sue upon a claim against the Government, as was the fact in United States v. North America Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U. S. 330.”

This is a case in which a claim is made against the Government. The statute forbids the payment of interest in such a case, and until Congress provides otherwise this court can not ignore the statute.

Judgment will be awarded plaintiff in the sum of $22,905, being the difference between the amount found to be the value of the property taken and the sum which plaintiff has received. And it is so ordered.  