
    CHARLES A. DUNNINGTON ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (24. C. Cls. R., 404; 146 U. S. R., 338.)
    
      On both parties’ Appeals.
    
    In 1863 realty in Washington is confiscated and sold. In 1872 it is taken for public use and the money paid into court. In 1873 the money is paid by order of the court to the person in possession under the confiscation proceedings. In 1887 tbe person whose estate was confiscated dies. His heirs now seek to recover the appraised value of the property when taken for public use in 1872.
    The court below decides:
    1. The Act 8th May, 1872 (17 Stat. L., 83), for the enlargement of the Capitol Grounds, was a special law, made by the Government for its own convenience, and did not necessarily discharge the constitutional obligation to make just compensation for private property taken for public use.
    2. For the Government to place compensation where the rightful owners may never be able to claim it, and where they can not until it has passed beyond their reach, is not a fulfillment of the constitutional obligation.
    3. An order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia that money paid into court as compensation for private property taken for public use be paid to a third person does not bind the owner unless he was made a party, nor release the Government.
    4. The Government in legal contemplation knew of confiscated property subsequently taken for public use; that, during the life of the ancestor, there was an outstanding inchoate right in his heirs. ■
    5. The right of the heirs to confiscated property taken for public use during the life of the ancestor does not exist until his death; then they can affirm the condemnation proceedings and seek the appraised value of the property.
    6. The jurisdiction of this court extends to a case where private property was taken for public use under legal proceedings, and the Government failed to make just compensation therefor to the rightful owner.
    7. Where private property is taken for public use, and money appropriated to pay for it failed to reach the owner by a misdirection on the part of the Government for which the owner is not responsible, the facts constitute an implied contract, whereof the court has jurisdiction.
    
      Tbe decision of tbe court below is reversed.
    The Supreme Court holds that by payment into court of the appraised value of the condemned property the United States were discharged from liability and not entitled to notice of the order distributing the money.
   Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 8, 1892.  