UNITED STATES v. WHEELOCK BROS., INC.
NO. 169.
Argued January 3, 1951.
Decided May 7, 1951.
Oscar H. Davis argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Clapp, Paul A. Sweeney and Melvin Richter.
Max Siskind argued the cause for Wheelock Bros., Inc. With him on the brief were Franklin N. Parks and Leo B. Parker.
Brent O. Stordahl and Nils A. Boe filed a brief for Robert G. May, as amicus curiae, in support of Wheelock Bros., Inc.
Per Curiam.
Wheelock Bros., Inc., a private motor carrier, sued in the Court of Claims to recover just compensation for an alleged temporary taking of its properties and business by the United States pursuant to Executive Order No. 9462. 9 Fed. Reg. 10071 (1944). The Court of Claims entered judgment awarding Wheelock Bros., Inc., just compensation in an amount less than that claimed. 115 Ct. Cl. 733, 88 F. Supp. 278 (1950). We granted certio-rari on the petitions of both parties. 340 U. S. 808 (1950).
While the action was pending in the Court of Claims, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Claims Commission Act, providing that that Commission “shall hear and determine, according to law, existing claims against the United States arising out of the taking by the United States of possession or control of any of the motor-carrier transportation systems described in Executive Order Numbered 9462 . . . .” Section 2. Within the time provided in the Act and before entry of judgment in the Court of Claims, Wheelock Bros., Inc., filed its claim with the Commission.
At the threshold, we are met with the question whether the Court of Claims had jurisdiction to enter judgment in this case. Congress, in § 6 of the Motor Carrier Claims Commission Act, expressly provided:
“The jurisdiction of the Commission over claims presented to it as provided in section 2 of this Act shall be exclusive; but nothing in this Act shall prevent any person who does not elect to present his claim to the Commission from pursuing any other remedy available to him.”
Wheelock Bros., Inc., by filing its claim with the Commission, did elect to present it to that tribunal. The Commission’s jurisdiction over the claim being “exclusive,” the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction to enter judgment in this case. For this reason, the judgment below is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Claims with instructions to dismiss the claim in that court.
It is so ordered.
62 Stat. 1222 (1948), as amended, 62 Stat. 1289, 1290 (1948), 63 Stat. 80 (1949).
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.