116 C. Cls.

EMINENT DOMAIN-Continued

for Government use, which was subsequently done
by proper condemnation proceedings; and where
the "Survey and Construction Permit" reserved
to the owners the right to claim and receive full
compensation for the value of any crops destroyed
or damaged; it is held that plaintiffs are entitled to
recover just compensation for the value of the
growing crop of gray banana squash, which had
been planted on a portion of the land, and which was
partly damaged and partly destroyed. Daily, 723.
Eminent Domain

82.

XIX. Upon the evidence, the fair value of the crop on the
land in question, on the date of the taking, was
$20,059.60, from which is deducted $1,687.59,
representing the amount of harvesting expense from
which plaintiff was relieved, and also deducting
$4,200, representing the market price of the squash
actually harvested, leaving a net sum of $14,172.01
plus an additional amount as a part of just compen-
sation measured by interest at four percent per
annum, from date of taking to date of payment. Id.
Eminent Domain

149.

XX. The power of the Government to take under eminent
domain applies to personal property as well as real
property, and it has frequently been held that it is
the character of the invasion, not the amount of
resulting damage, so long as the damage is substan-
tial, which determines whether there is a "taking"
within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. Id.

Eminent Domain 45, 87.

XXI. In a suit for just compensation for the requisition o

the yacht Mizpah by the War Shipping Administra-
tion on March 16, 1942, where it is shown that the
sister ship of the Mizpah sold in 1940 for about
$110,000 and taking into consideration that in
October 1940 the Navy Department was willing to
pay $150,000 for the Mizpah and the plaintiff was
then willing to accept $263,000, and upon the
evidence as to the condition of the vessel, which
had been kept most of the time in fresh water, and
the superior equipment of the Mizpah, and other
pertinent considerations; it is held that just com-
pensation for the vessel on the date of requisition
was $175,000. Plaintiff having been paid $87,000

116 C. Cls.

EMINENT DOMAIN-Continued

on March 8, 1943, judgment is given for $88,000
plus, as a part of just compensation, interest on
$175,000 at 4 percent per annum from March 16,
1942, to March 8, 1943, and interest at the same rate
on $88,000 from March 8, 1943, to date of payment
of judgment. McDonald, 734.

War and National Defense 14.

XXII. Cost has never been the measure of just compensation,
although it may be one of the indicia to be taken
into consideration in certain cases. See Vogelstein
v. United States, 262 U. S. 337; Commodities Trading
Corporation v. United States, 339 U. S. 121. Id.

War and National Defense 14.

XXIII. In the instant case, plaintiff's basis of reproduction
cost, less depreciation, cannot be the measure of
just compensation because at the time the Mizpah
was requisitioned, when the use of private yachts was
subject to severe government restrictions, costs of
labor and material were high, no one would have
thought of duplicating this yacht. Id.

See also Just Compensation VII, VIII, IX; Statute of Limitations
I, II; Civil Aeronautics Act IV.

ERROR IN BID.

See Contracts XCVII.

ESTOPPEL.

See Contracts XLVI, XLVII, LXXXIII.

EVIDENCE.

See Contracts XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XLII,
XLIII, XLIV, XLV; Statute of Limitations I, II.

EXCESS COSTS.

See Contracts XLVIII, XLIX, L, LI, LII, LIII, LIV.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9250.

See Contracts LXXXI, LXXXII, LXXXIII, LXXXIV, LXXXV,
LXXXVI, LXXXVII, LXXXVIII.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 9301.

See Contracts LV, LVI, LVII, LVIII, LIX.

EXPERT WITNESSES.

See Eminent Domain VI.

FLYING PAY.

See Pay and Allowances I, II.

GOVERNMENT AGENTS, AUTHORITY OF.

I. A statement by the Chairman of the Board of Awards,
when the bids were opened, that in his opinion the
bid form provision for an increase or decrease if taxes

116 C. Cls.

GOVERNMENT AGENTS, AUTHORITY OF-Continued

or charges were increased or decreased by Congress
would apply to any adjustment of prices by the
Office of Price Administration was not binding on
the defendant, since the Chairman was not the con-
tracting officer nor his authorized representative.
Charles W. Kelly, 811.

United States

60.

II. Under the decisions, persons dealing with the Govern-
ment must take notice of the extent of the authority
conferred by the Government upon the agents with
whom such persons are dealing. Id.

United States

40.

GRAND COULEE DAM.

See Contracts I.

GROWING CROP.

See Eminent Domain XVIII, XIX, XX.
IMMIGRATION BOND.

I. In a suit to recover the proceeds of a Treasury note,
deposited as security for a bond conditioned upon
the requirements that an alien would depart from
the United States by a certain time and that while
in the United States he would not engage in any
business or occupation or employment for hire,
where it is shown by the evidence that both condi-
tions of the bond were breached by the alien; it is
held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
Kavounas, 406.

Aliens 53.

II. Where the alien, before his entry into the United States,
had invested money in a partnership with his
brother; and where after his admission as a tem-
porary resident he assisted his brother in the business
of the partnership, even after the expiration of the
extended period for which he was admitted under
the bond; it is held he was engaged in a business or
occupation within the meaning of the provisions of
the bond, and in violation thereof. A partnership is
a well-recognized form of business association. Id.
Aliens 53.

III. Where it is shown that pursuant to an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals, suspending the
order of deportation issued by the Acting Commis-
sioner of Immigration and Naturalization and per-
mitting the alien to leave the country without

116 C. Cls.

IMMIGRATION BOND-Continued

INDIAN CLAIMS.

expense to the United States, the alien went to
Canada where he obtained an immigration visa
which permitted him to enter the United States for
permanent residence, and he did so reenter this
country about three months after the order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals; it is held that the
effect of the appeal to the Board of Immigration
Appeals was to stay the entry of the order of depor-
tation and the forfeiture of the bond, but the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the alien's
subsequent lawful entry into the United States did
not in any way affect the previously established
breach of the obligations of the bond. Id.

Aliens

53.

I. Under the Jurisdictional Act of August 26, 1935,
(49 Stat. 801) and in accordance with the prior
decision in this case February 4, 1946 (105 C. Cls.
495), in which it was held that the Confederated
Bands of Umpqua and Calapooia Indians of the
Umpqua Valley were entitled to recover the value
of the land reserved by them under the Treaty of
November 29, 1854, and actually occupied by them
at the time of their removal from the reservation
in 1855, and that these Indians and certain others
were entitled to recover the respective amounts set
forth in that decision (105 C. Cls. 495), to the
extent that they exceed any allowable offsets to
which the defendant might show itself entitled
under Rule 39 (a); it is held, after the taking of
further evidence as to the valuations of the land
taken and as to offsets, that the Umpqua and Cala-
pooia Indians of the Umpqua Valley are entitled,
after the deduction of offsets, to recover $342,450.74,
together with interest on the principal sum as part
of just compensation, under Article 1 of the 1854
Treaty, and that the Mo-Lal-Las or Molel Tribe
of Indians are entitled, after offsets, to recover
$34,996.85, without interest. Rogue River Tribe of
Indians, 454.

United States 105.

II. As to the question of the size and location of the
reservation occupied by the Confederated Bands of
Umpqua and Calapooia Indians of the Umpqua
Valley and reserved by them under the 1854 Treaty,
the court finds that the description contained in the

INDIAN CLAIMS-Continued

116 C. Cls.

first article of that treaty (10 Stat. 1125), the map
prepared from that description by the Department
of the Interior and the Department's estimate of the
approximate area involved, indicate that the reser-
vation contained approximately 67,820 acres of land
in the Umpqua Valley in Douglas County, Oregon.
Id.

Indians

12.

III. On the question of occupancy, the court finds that the
Umpquas and Calapooias were, within the meaning
of their treaty, in actual occupancy of all the land
reserved to them in the first article of their treaty,
including the tract reserved. The term "actual
occupancy" indicated the usual mode of occupancy
of Indians at that time. Id.

Indians

12.

IV. Almost immediately after the signing of the Treaty of
December 21, 1855 (12 Stat. 981), ratified in 1859,
by which the Molel Band was confederated with
the Umpquas and the Calapooias, all the Indians
assembled on the reservation, and the Umpquas
and Calapooias were moved to the Grand Ronde
Reservation. Thus, even if the Molels can be said
to have been designated to share the reservation,
they never actually occupied any portion of the
land. Id.

Indians

12.

V. Taking into consideration the location of the tract
and its physical characteristics, the development of
the surrounding area at the time of taking, actual
disposals of the tribal lands after the taking by the
Government, private sale of similar lands bordering
on the reservation, sales of land in the tribal area by
the Oregon and California Railroad, agricultural and
timber value of the reservation, and on the record
as a whole, the court concludes that the lands taken
had an average value of $1 per acre as of the date of
taking on December 21, 1855. Id.

United States

108.

VI. The court follows the opinion in the case of the Alcea
Band of Tillamooks et al. v. United States, 115 C.
Cls. 463, in denying defendant's contention that any
set-offs should be proportioned annually since 1855
before calculating and adding the additional amount