188 Opinion of the Court. purpose of expediting shipments, was not a taking for a public use of the owner's power to dispose of the coal, nor did it create an implied contract of the United States to indemnify the owner against losses due to the delays and decline of market prices. P. 191. 2. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of a suit to recover compensation for property appropriated by the United States under § 10 of the Lever Act. P. 191. 60 Ct. Cls. 323, affirmed. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Claims sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the petition in a suit by a shipper of coal claiming compensation for losses resulting from delays of the Government in allowing credit for coal pooled in a coal exchange during the war, as required by an order made under the Lever Act. Messrs. Walter Carroll Low and Carroll Blakely Low were on the brief for appellant. Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. Gardner P. Lloyd, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were on the brief for the United States. MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court. A demurrer to the amended petition was sustained; judgment dismissing the action was entered, and appeal was taken under §§ 242 and 243 of the Judicial Code, before the taking effect of the Amendment of February 13, 1925. The substance of the allegations follows. Claimant was a shipper of coal. In June, 1917, there was organized an unincorporated association called the Tidewater Coal Exchange and rules were made for its operation. The purpose was to expedite the transfer of coal from cars to boats at certain Atlantic ports. August 23, 1917, the President, by virtue of the Lever Act, approved Opinion of the Court. 275 U.S. August 10, 1927, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276, appointed a Fuel Administrator to carry out its provisions relating to fuel. The latter made an order that approved the rules of the exchange; designated its commissioner as his representative to carry out the order and rules; and required every shipper of coal for trans-shipment at such ports, on and after November 11, 1917, to consign the coal to the exchange in accordance with and subject to its rules. The defendant, acting through the Fuel Administrator, represented and agreed that any and all coal shipped subject to the order should be credited to the shipper in accordance with the rules of the exchange. The order and rules required that all coal shipped to such ports should be pooled with other shipments of the same classification, and that each shipper should be credited in the pools with coal equivalent to the amounts theretofore shipped by him. Claimant, at various times between November 11, 1917, and December 5, 1918, shipped coal to the exchange. "The defendant, acting through said United States Fuel Administrator, its duly authorized representative, withheld from and failed to credit " claimant for coal to which it was entitled, amounting in all to 34,143 net tons. Claimant was not given credit for these amounts until December 5, 1918. It was ready to receive the coal at the various times the credits should have been given. And there are allegations to show that, by reason of the facts above mentioned, claimant was damaged in the sum of $50,000. Claimant's narration strongly suggests that the failure to give it timely credits was due to some fault or negligence on the part of those operating the exchange. But, recognizing the rule that the Government cannot be held for tort (Bigby v. United States, 188 U. S. 400), it seeks 188 Opinion of the Court. recovery on the ground that its property was taken for public use entitling it to compensation under the Fifth Amendment. No part of claimant's coal was consumed or appropriated by the Government. Claimant asserts that its power to dispose of the coal was taken and withheld until it got credit therefor. But, if that be assumed, there is nothing to indicate that the taking was for public use. Moreover, if property was appropriated for public use, the taking must have been under § 10 of the Lever Act (Bedding Co. v. United States, 266 U. S. 491), and the Court of Claims had no jurisdiction, as that section gave the district courts exclusive jurisdiction over controversies concerning compensation. United States v. Pfitsch, 256 U. S. 547; Houston Coal Co. v. United States, 262 U.S. 361. Claimant contends that, even if there was no taking, the Government is liable on a contract implied in fact. It was not the Government's purpose to acquire any of claimant's property. The Fuel Administrator's order was made to expedite the movement of coal by subjecting it to the rules and operation of the exchange. And, as the credits were not withheld for any public purpose, the facts and circumstances alleged are clearly insufficient to imply an obligation on the part of the Government to indemnify claimant against losses due to delays and decline of market price. Cf. Bothwell v. United States, 254 U. S. 231; Morrisdale Coal Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 188; Omnia Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 502. Indeed, the circumstances rebut the existence of such an agreement. Klebe v. United States, 263 U. S. 188, 191; Horstmann Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 138, 146. Judgment affirmed. 275 U.S. Counsel for Parties. MARRON v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 185. Argued October 12, 1927.-Decided November 21, 1927. 1. The requirement of the Fourth Amendment that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. P, 195. 2. Under the Fourth Amendment and Title 18, U. S. Code, a search warrant describing intoxicating liquors and articles for their manufacture does not authorize the seizure of a ledger and bills of account found in a search of the premises specified in the warrant. P. 196. 3. Officers, in making a lawful search of premises where intoxicating liquors are being unlawfully sold, may lawfully arrest, without a warrant, a person there actually in charge of the premises and actually engaged, in the presence of the officers, in a conspiracy to maintain them, and may contemporaneously, as an incident to the arrest, seize account books and papers not described in the search warrant, but which are used in carrying on the criminal enterprise and are found on the premises and in the immediate possession and control of the person arrested. P. 198. 18 F. (2d) 218, affirmed. CERTIORARI, 274 U. S. 727, to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Marron on a second trial for conspiracy to maintain a nuisance in violation of the Prohibition Act. See also 8 F. (2d) 251. Mr. Hugh L. Smith, with whom Mr. Benjamin L. McKinley was on the brief, for petitioner. Assistant Attorney General Willebrandt, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell and Mr. John J. Byrne, Attorney in the Department of Justice, were on the brief, for the United States. 192 Opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court. October 17, 1924, the above named petitioner, one Birdsall, and five others were indicted in the southern division of the northern district of California. It was charged that they conspired to commit various offenses against the National Prohibition Act, including the maintenance of a nuisance at 1249 Polk Street, San Francisco. § 37 Criminal Code (U. S. C., Tit. 18, § 88). One defendant was never apprehended; one was acquitted; the rest were found guilty. Of these, Marron, Birdsall, and two others obtained review in the Circuit Court of Appeals. The judgment was affirmed as to all except petitioner. He secured reversal and a new trial. 8 F. (2d) 251. He was again found guilty; and the conviction was affirmed. 18 F. (2d) 218. Petitioner insists that a ledger and certain bills were obtained through an illegal search and seizure and put in evidence against him in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The question arose at the first trial. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the book and papers were lawfully seized and admissible. When the second conviction was before it, that court held the earlier decision governed the trial, established the law of the case, and foreclosed further consideration. For some time prior to October 1, 1924, petitioner was the lessee of the entire second floor of 1249 Polk Street. On that day a prohibition agent obtained from a United States commissioner a warrant for the search of that place, particularly describing the things to be seizedintoxicating liquors and articles for their manufacture. The next day, four prohibition agents went to the place and secured admission by causing the doorbell to be rung. There were six or seven rooms containing slot machines, 83583°-28-13 |