When the United States takes possession of property, asserting a title hostile to that of the true owner, such owner cannot recover the reasonable value of the use, or the reasonable value of the fee of the same, in a suit in the Court of Claims, or in a Circuit or District Court of the United States. On the other hand, "when the Government of the United States, by such formal proceedings as are necessary to bind the Government, takes for public use, as for an arsenal, custom-house, or fort, land to which it asserts no claim or title, but admits the ownership to be private or individual, there arises an implied obligation to pay the owner its just value." So, neither the Court of Claims nor any other court has jurisdiction of an action against the United States, or against any officer thereof," to enjoin the The United States are not liable for injury resulting from the negligence of their officers to those who are not in a contractual or a quasicontractual relation with them. German Bank of Memphis v. U. S., 148 U. S. 573. Thus, where the Register of the Treasury canceled registered bonds without authority of law, a party who bought them on the faith of such cancellation and subsequently was obliged to repay their value to the original owner, was not allowed to recover from the United States the amount for which he was thus mulcted. Ibid. The United States are not liable for damage to a water right, Gibson's Case, 29 Ct. Cl. 18; nor to land, Hayward's Case, 30 Ct. Cl. 219, where there is no contract upon the subject. But where the United States agreed to furnish a cofferdam to a contractor who was to construct a public work, it was held that they were liable for damage caused by negligence in such construction, although there was no stipulation in the contract to that effect. Collins & Farwell v. U. S., 34 Ct. Cl. 294. 4 Miller, J., in Langford v. U. S., 101 U. S. 341. See Hill v. U. S., 149 U. S. 593; Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Atty. Gen., 124 U. S. 581; U. S. v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623; Grant v. U. S., 1 Ct. Cl. 41; Hollister v. Benedict & B. Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 67; Mills v. U. S., 19 Ct. Cl. 79; Kettler v. U. S., 21 Ct. Cl. 175. The filing of a petition in the Court of Claims under a statute providing that in that manner damages may be recovered for the taking of private property for public use, is a waiver of an objection by the plaintiff to the alleged unconstitutionality of such statute. Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Atty. Gen., 124 U. S. 581; U. S. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U. S. 645. The owner of a well near to, but not on the line of, the Washington aqueduct, which was destroyed by the construction of the aqueduct, may recover its value from the United States under 22 St. at L. 168 (Act of July 15, 1882). U. S. v. Alexander, 148 U. S. 186; U. S. v. Truesdell, 148 U. S. 196. In a proceeding to condemn the locks and dams of a corporation, the value of the franchise to take tolls for their use must be included in the compensation. Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 312. 5 U. S. v. Palmer. 128 U. S. 262, 269. 6 Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10; Dashiell v. Grosvenor (C. C. A.), 66 infringement of a patent, or to recover profits or damages from such an officer on account of the use of the article by him in his official character where he derived no personal benefit from such use. Nor to recover such profits from the United States for such a use when made without any express or implied recognition of the rights of the patentee and against his protest. But where the United States has adopted an improvement covered by a patent at the request of the patentee, with notice that he claims a patent-right to the same, and with no assertion of a right to use the same without compensation, the patentee may recover a reasonable royalty for the use of the patent, in a suit in the Court of Claims founded upon a contract implied from the transaction." The Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, does not give the Court of Claims jurisdiction of suits against the United States to establish land claims, or to enforce the specific performance of contracts.10 No suit can be sustained merely upon moral or equitable considerations, not based upon any established rule of law or equity." The Court of Claims has no power to make a rule requiring parties to present their claims to an Executive Department before suit. Such a rule is void.12 An officer may sue to recover a salary allowed by an Act of Congress. 13 An owner of bonds, assumed by the United States, may maintain an action in the Court of Claims to collect the amount of the same. A statute which confers exclusive authority upon a public officer over certain questions or claims deprives the Court of Claims of jurisdiction concerning the same. 14 Fed. R. 334. Cf. James v. Campbell, U. S. v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262. Where 11 Bonner v. U. S., 9 Wall. 156; McClure v. U. S., 116 U. S. 145; Tillson v. U. S., 100 U. S. 43. 12 Clyde v. U. S., 13 Wall. 38. 13 Moore v. U. S., 4 Ct. Cl. 139. 14 Morrell v. U. S., 7 Ct. CL. 421. 15 Davidson v. U. S., 21 Ct. Cl. 298; Daily v. U. S., 17 Ct. Cl. 144; Marshall v. U. S., 21 Ct. Cl. 307; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 20 Ct. Cl. 49; Alire v. U. S., 1 Ct. Cl. 233; s. c., 7 Ct. Cl. 27; Bofinger v. U. S., 18 Ct. Cl. 148, 165; Dorsheimer v. U. S., 7 Wall. 166. an officer is directed by statute to examine claims, to report to Congress and to await further legislative action, no suit can be maintained on his report.16 Where Congress recognizes the validity of a claim, appropriates money to pay the same, and directs a public officer to examine and pay it, a suit upon such claim against the United States may be maintained in the Court of Claims." A suit may be maintained against the United States upon an allowance made by a Commissioner of Internal Revenue to a judgment creditor, under section 3220 of the Revised Statutes, where the collector does not object and sets up no claim himself; 18 provided, the Commissioner has not exceeded his jurisdiction in making the allowance.19 A suit may be maintained to recover the amount of an award under a statute giving an informer a share of the penalty.20 A suit may be maintained to recover of the United States taxes and penalties similar to those in sections 3220 and 3228 of the Revised Statutes, when a claim has been in due time presented on appeal to and allowed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; 21 and also of a suit for a drawback under the Act of August 5, 1861, chapter 45, section 4, after payment has been refused.22 It has been held that suits may be successfully maintained as upon implied contracts with the United States by a naval officer for his expenses when traveling under orders; 23 by a public officer such as the register of a land office on an implied contract for reasonable expenses necessary for the performance of his public duties, including rent and payments for janitor's services and fuel, except where a law limits or prohibits the same; to recover money paid under the void judgment of a 24 16 Huffman v. U. S., 17 Ct. Cl. 55. 18 Nixon v. U. S., 18 Ct. Cl. 448. U. S. v. Ramsay, 120 U. S. 214. 21 U. S. v. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 728. See also U. S. v. Kaufman, 96 U. S. 567. 22 Campbell v. U. S., 107 U. S. 407; Portland Co. v. U. S., 5 Ct. Cl. 441. 23 U. S. v. McDonald, 128 U. S. 471. 24 Luse v. U. S., 35 Ct. Cl. 164. For a case where letter carriers were allowed to recover upon an implied contract for working more than eight hours a day, see San Francisco Mail Carriers' Case, 33 Ct. Cl. 417. "The action of the auditing department, either in allowing or rejecting a claim, was not an essential prerequisite to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear it." U. S. v. Knox, 26 31 military commission; 25 of an illegal tax upon realty, paid for the purpose of obtaining possession of the same, and money illegally exacted by a government officer, under such circumstances that the payment was necessary to avoid stopping the business in which the claimant was engaged; 27 to recover money paid to a public officer under a mutual mistake of fact; 28 but not money paid under a mutual mistake of law; 29 to recover money paid a land officer as part payment for a certificate of entry which he refuses to deliver, the consideration for the payment thus failing; 30 to recover money of the claimant received by the United States for other purposes, and appropriated by them for the payment of an illegal tax;31 to recover money of the claimant obtained and paid into the Treasury by a fraud perpetrated by an officer of the United States; 32 to recover the value of property delivered in pursuance of an express contract which is void; 33 to recover the damage to property leased by the government and injured by the want of reasonable care while in its possession; to recover for salvage services, and for the share of general average reasonable due; 36 but not, it has been held, to recover damages for an injury due to the negligent operation of an elevator in a government building." If two claimants seek to recover for the use of the same property, one cannot resist by a plea to the jurisdiction that the title to land is involved.38 35 34 The statute authorizing the Court of Claims to enter an 128 U. S. 230, 234, per Miller, J. "But if such claims are presented to the department for allowance, and the department, in the exercise of its discretion, suspends action upon them until proper vouchers are furnished, or other reasonable requirements are complied with, the courts should not assume jurisdiction until final action is taken," unless there is unreasonable delay. U. S. v. Fletcher, 147 U. S. 661, 667, per Brown, J. 25 Devlin v. U. S., 12 Ct. Cl. 266. But see Carver v. U. S., 111 U. S. 609. 26 Simons v. U. S., 19 Ct. Cl. 601. 27 Swift Co. v. U. S.. 111 U. S. 22. See N. Y. Consol. Card Co. v. U. S., 20 Ct. Cl. 174; Dooley v. U. S., S. C. U. S., May 27, 1901. 28 Nelson v. U. S., 35 Ct. Cl. 427; Ingram v. U. S., 32 Ct. Cl. 147. 29 U. S. v. Edmonston, 181 U. S. 500; U. S. v. Wilson, 168 U. S. 273; U. S. v. Lawson, 101 U. S. 664. 30 Slocum v. U. S., 35 Ct. Cl. 485. 31 Johnston v. U. S., 17 Ct. Cl. 157. 32 U. S. v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 30. 33 Heathfield v. U. S., 8 Ct. Cl. 213. 34 U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53. 35 Bryan v. U. S., 6 Ct. Cl. 128; McGowan v. U. S., 20 Ct. Cl. 147. 36 Brown v. U. S., 15 Ct. Cl. 392. 37 Bigby v. U. S., 103 Fed. R. 597. 38 Bright v. U. S., 6 Ct. Cl. 118; s. C., 8 Ct. Cl. 326. affirmative judgment in favor of the United States against a suitor in the Court of Claims does not violate the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. This right is as comprehensive as the similar rights given to the Crown by the British Act of 1860 regulating Petitions of Right." 39 The Court of Claims has jurisdiction to hear and determine a counter-claim by the United States for the proceeds of their property wrongfully sold by an insolvent debtor in a suit by his assignee in insolvency on a contract between the insolvent and the United States." It has been held that the United States may take an assignment from A., its judgment debtor, of a judgment held by A. against B., and set off the same in a suit brought by B. upon an award of Congress, notwithstanding the fact that B. has assigned his award to C.; provided, the set-off was acquired before notice of the assignment."2 Where a suit on a claim was brought by a firm of three, it was held that the United States could not set off a judgment against two of them.43 After the government has allowed a claim and payment of a part to the assignees of the claimant, upon his receipt in full, the government, when sued for the balance, cannot set up as a counter-claim the amount so paid, on the ground that the assignment was irregularly executed." Where an officer of the navy, upon settlement of his accounts, claimed that he would not be concluded thereby, and subsequently sued for a balance claimed by him, it was held that the United States was not bound by the settlement, and could obtain judgment for moneys improperly paid him in pursuance thereof.45 If a claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the counterclaim falls with it.46 The subjects of Great Britain," of Belgium," of France," of 39 McElrath v. U. S., 102 U. S. 426, 440; s. c., 12 Ct. Cl. 312. 40 23 and 24 Vict. 17, ch. 34; Roman v. U. S., 11 Ct. Cl. 761. See Delancey v. The Queen, 6 L. R. Exch. 286. 41 McElrath v. U. S., 102 U. S. 426; U. S. v. Burchard, 125 U. S. 176. 42 Boehm v. U. S., 21 Ct. Cl. 290. 43 Allen v. U. S., 17 Wall. 207, 5 Ct. Cl. 339; Macauley v. U. S., 11 Ct. Cl. 693. 44 Macauley v. U. S., 11 Ct. Cl. 693. 45 Boehm v. U. S., 20 Ct. Cl. 142. 46 McKnight v. U. S., 98 U. S. 179, 13 Ct. Cl. 292. 47 U. S. v. O'Keefe, 11 Wall. 178; Carlisle v. U. S., 16 Wall. 147, 6 Ct. CL. 398. 48 De Give v. U. S., 7 Ct. CL 517. 49 Rothschild v. U. S., 6 Ct. Cl. 204; Dauphin v. U. S., 6 Ct. Cl. 221. |