
    LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. UNITED STATES
    [59 C. Cls. 628; 272 U. S. 533]
    Judgment was rendered in part in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was
    affirmed,
    the Supreme Court deciding:
    1. An appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (entered April 28, 1924) applied for while a motion for a new trial and amended findings was pending, though premature, was not a nullity, and became effective when the motion was denied and the appeal allowed.
    2. Time did not run against the right to appeal while the motion for new trial and amended findings was pending.
    3. The limits placed hy Congress on the scope of review in this court of judgments of the Court of Claims, do not deprive defeated claimants of due process of law under the fifth amendment.
    4. Under the law . and rules governing the subject, review of judgments of the Court of Claims is confined to questions of law shown hy the record when made up as the rules direct. Evidence is not included in the record, nor rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence.
    6.Where the findings are ambiguous, contradictory or silent in respect of a material matter, or appear on their face ill founded in point of law, the case may and should be remanded for corrected or additional findings, hut-this is to be done only where the need for correction or addition is apparent either on the face of the findings or when they are examined in connection with the pleadings.
    6. An order of the Court of Claims overruling a motion for a new trial, which brought nothing new into the casé, held not reviewable.
    7. Evidential and plainly subordinate matter is inappropriate to a finding of ultimate facts.
    8. A finding of the value of property taken by the Government held a finding of fact, and not reviewable.
    9. A claimant is not in position to press requests for findings which do not appear to have been tendered to the Court of Claims as required by the Bule.
    10. Where an owner of boats which were taken over by the United States under the act of June 15, 1917, elected not to accept as full compensation the sum fixed by the President, but to accept three-fourths of it, under the act, and sue for more, but recovered only the additional fourth which he had declined to accept, he was not entitled under the Fifth Amendment to interest on such deferred compensation.
   Mr. Justice YaN Devanter

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 23, 1926.  