## Facts

- Congress authorized acquisition of land in Maryland for the Aberdeen Proving Ground and appropriated funds for facilities, land, and certain “damages and losses” resulting from procurement of land.
- Plaintiffs owned 440 acres used to grow and can a specialized grade of corn as part of an established business.
- The government acquired plaintiffs’ tract as part of the proving ground project; the project also reduced the availability of nearby land suited to plaintiffs’ specialized corn.
- Plaintiffs claimed they could not reestablish their business elsewhere because suitable land was no longer available.
- The President fixed $76,000 as compensation for the land and related physical interests; no amount was allowed for the business.
- Plaintiffs accepted the award without protest, then sued in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act seeking an additional $100,000 for loss of business.
- The Court of Claims entered judgment for the United States; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether destruction of plaintiffs’ business, allegedly caused by the government’s acquisition and use of land for the proving ground, constituted a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether the 1917 statute’s reference to “damages and losses” resulting from procurement of land created a judicially enforceable right to recover for business loss.
3. Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction permitted recovery based on an implied obligation to pay for the destroyed business.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the United States.
- Loss or destruction of business that occurs as an unintended incident of taking land is not compensable as part of just compensation for the land taken.
- The 1917 statutory language did not authorize a judicial award against the United States for business-loss damages as an independent item of compensation.
- Tucker Act jurisdiction did not extend to recovery based on obligations implied in law, and plaintiffs identified no money-mandating basis requiring payment for business loss.

## Legal Principles

- Just compensation for eminent domain generally covers interests in the property taken, not consequential damages such as loss of profits or destruction of a business incidentally affected by the taking.
- An incidental injury to business from government acquisition of land is not itself treated as a taking of the business under the Fifth Amendment.
- Appropriation and acquisition-authorizing language referring to “damages and losses” is not construed, without clear direction, to expand the United States’ judicially enforceable liability beyond compensation for interests in the land taken.
- The Tucker Act does not authorize suits against the United States based solely on contracts implied in law; a claimant must show a compensable taking, an express or implied-in-fact contract, or a statute that mandates payment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that plaintiffs could not recover additional compensation for destruction of their specialized corn-growing and canning business because the loss was merely consequential to the land taking and the governing statute did not create a judicially enforceable right to business-loss damages.


Mitchell v. United States, 267 U.S. 341 (1925)