Perrin v. United States, 20 L. Ed. 412 (1871). · Go Syfert
Search
Perrin v. United States, 20 L. Ed. 412 (1871). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Doe v. United States (uscfc, 2010-11-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1930 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1930 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see, e.g." Doe v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
In the case of enemy property destroyed by the military, the enemy property doctrine provides that the “United States does not have to answer under the Takings Clause for the destruction of enemy property or ... ‘enemy war-making instrumentalities.’” El-Shifa, 378 F.3d at 1355 (citation omitted); see also Perrin v. United States, 4 Ct.Cl. 543, 547-48 (1868) (“No government, except as a special favor bestowed, has ever paid for the property of even its own citizens in its own country destroyed in attacking or defending against a common public enemy_”), aff'd, 79 U.S. 315, 316 , 12 W…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Perrin
v.
United States
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 13, 1871.
20 L. Ed. 412
. Mr. W. W. Boice,for the appellants ; Mr. Alarman, Attorney-General, and Mr. G. H..HUI, contra.
Clifford.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Mr, Justice CLIFFORD

stated the case and delivered the judgment-of this court.

The petitioners alleged in the court below that they were naturalized citizens of the United States; that just before the' 18th of July, 1854, they arrived at San Juan del Norte, or Grey town, possessed of a valuable invoice of merchandise, with the intention of establishing a commercial house in some part of Central America; that on that day the town of San Juau was bombarded and burnt by the United States sloop-of-war Cyane, and all the merchandise, books, and papers of the petitioners, together with their personal effects. Appearance was entered by the Assistant Attorney-General, and he demurred to the petition because it did not set forth facts Sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. Whereupon the petitioners appealed to this court,-and alleged that the decision sustaining the demurrer was erroneous, but the court here, inasmuch as the claim is not one “founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with, the government of the United States,” concurs in opinion with thé- Court of Claims and-

Affirms the decree dismissing the petition.