Judson v. United States
Citations
- 120 F. 637
- 57 C.C.A. 99
- 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4513
Syllabus
<p>1. United States — Condemnation Proceedings — Power of District Attorney to Agree to Arbitration.</p> <p>A district attorney of the United States, authorized to institute and conduct proceedings to condemn land for a public building within a state, has the same power to bind the United States by an agreement to submit the matter of damages to arbitration, in accordance with a provision of the state statute applicable to such actions, as the attorney for. an individual litigant would have.</p> <p>2. Sam:e — Agreement for Arbitration — Conclusiveness of Judgment on Award.</p> <p>Gen. St. Conn. 1902, § 958, provides that “when the parties to any action pending in court desire to refer it to arbitration each may choose one arbitrator and the court may appoint a third; and the award of such arbitrators returned to and accepted by the court shall be final and judgment shall be rendered pursuant thereto.” In an action brought by the United States in that state to condemn land for a public building, in which in accordance with the state procedure it was the duty of the court, on application of the government, to appoint a committee to assess the damages, the District Attorney and the attorney for the landowner entered into a stipulation to submit all claims “to the arbitrament and'determination” of three persons- named, and that the “decision and award of a majority of said arbitrators” should be final when approved by the court.. Such an award was made and submitted to the court by tlie District Attorney, approved without objection, and judgment entered thereon. Held, that the stipulation was one for arbitration, and not for the appointment of a committee under the condemnation statute, and that the judgment entered upon the award was conclusive on the United States.</p> <p>8. Arbitration — Waiver of Irregularity.</p> <p>Under the law of Connecticut as established by decision, where a pending cause is submitted to arbitration under the statute, which provides that each
Judges: Lacombe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Danforth v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1939-12-04· cited 362×
- United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility DistrictS.D. California· 1958-08-08· cited 20×
- Lewis Pub. Co. v. WymanEighth Circuit· 1910-08-20· cited 15×
- Illig v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2005-07-27· cited 6×
- El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Franceschi de FlemingSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1951-05-25· cited 5×
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. BurdenSecond Circuit· 1929-02-04· cited 2×
- Kanakanui v. United StatesD. Hawaii· 1916-12-09
- People v. Franceschi de FlemingSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1951-05-25
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. BarkerSupreme Court· 1827-02-23· cited 34×
- Sherwood v. StevensonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1857-02-15· cited 9×
- Judson v. GageSecond Circuit· 1899-12-07· cited 9×
- Post v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1865-11-15· cited 8×
- In re Secretary of Treasury of United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1891-03-14· cited 8×
- Crone v. DanielsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1850-08-15· cited 7×
- White v. FoxSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1861-03-15· cited 4×
Other cases named Judson v. United States
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.