Summary

Rice v. United States — Opinion of the Court

How is it possible that congress by passing an act, without the solicitation of the legal owner of the claim, the present claimant, authorizing a court to take jurisdiction of a case, and nothing more, can have attached to the claim itself another statute not previously applicable to it, which should in time work out a legal presumption of payment and an absolute extinguishment of the claimant's rights?
Source: Wikisource

Rice v. United States — Opinion of the Court

While congress has declared a general limitation of six years for 'every claim cognizable by the court of claims,' and a still shorter one of two years for claims under the captured or abandoned property act, it is unreasonable to infer that it intended to confer upon every claimant under the act of 1877-and the present one is the second who has appeared (Erwin's Case, 13 Ct. Cl. 49, affirmed on appeal, 97 U.S. 392) -the unusual and extraordinary privilege accorded to no other citizen, of bringing suit against the government at any future time without limitation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature