Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The history of the case appears fully in the opinion. The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The Great Falls Manufacturing Company is a corporation established by the laws of the State of Virginia, having its domicile at the Great Falls of the Potomac, in Fairfax County, Virginia. II.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The history of the case appears fully in the opinion. The following are the facts as found by the court: I. The Great Falls Manufacturing Company is a corporation established by the laws of the State of Virginia, having its domicile at the Great Falls of the Potomac, in Fairfax County, Virginia. II. The river Potomac, which flows past the cities of Washington and Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, furnishes the most convenient and available source of supply of water at sufficiently high level to be distributed through those cities. About 16 miles…
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, J.
The dimensions of this case have greatly diminished since its first appearance on the files of this court. The original petition filed by the claimants on the 10th April, 1868, prayed judgment against the government for $500,000. On the 3d November, 1869, the claimants reiterated their demand for that amount, varying somewhat the technical grounds upon which the demand rested. Afterwards, on the 31st of January, 1879, they amended their petition and reduced their claim to the sum of $143,592. They now come before the court and are content to ask a judgment for $15,692.
The several amendments…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Boom Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Kohl v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Mayor of New York v. MilnSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Langford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Crimm's Adm'rs v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brannen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1885
- Tenaska Washington Partners, L.P. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995
- City of New York v. SageCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1911
- Smith v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1897