g merely designed to enableclaim originally intended and.it is plain that the principleimoto cases is here applica,ble.allowance of the amendments from the sale of his truck is

293

CLAIM OF SHIGERU RICIIARD HORIO

lNo. 14(i-:lt-2623. Decided August 80, 19Ur1l

FINDINGS OT I.ACT

r * *

REASONS F.OR, DECISION

The case is one of first impression. The claimantwas a medical student in the University of California andhad almost completed the last semester of his second yearwhen he voluntarily departed from San trlancisco to SaltLake City whither his parents had preceded him. He leftthe school about a week before the order of evacuationapplicable to his home would have been effective and thecity on the very eve of this date. He worked for about8 months in Salt Lake City and then resumed his medicalstudies at the University of Utah. In order to get creditfor his interrupted last quarter at San Flaneisco, he hadto take sorne of this work over again at Salt Lake City, andthis first quarter (actually 2 months of the quarter) atthe University of Utah beginning in January 1g4B costhim $65. The annual registration fee of $10 and the an-nual nonresident fee of $45, paid for the year 1g48, hewould have had to pay in any case to take his third yearof the full course and consequently no portion of eitherof these fees was involved in his repeated period. He hadto pay altogether S383 more at Salt Lake City than hewould have had to pay had he been allowed to remain inSan Francisco. Of this amount, S100 was the differentialin tuition for the 2 years imposed on students fromwithout the State of Utah, see Utdh Code Annotated(1943), $ 75-2-l; and the remaining $2ge apparently

294

was for the generally higher tuition ar the Utah School.Claimant has claimed for the full ffigg.* " "

I,t cannot be said that the education received by theclaimant at the university of utah was of less value thanthe money that he was required to pay for it, hence nopart of such payment can be regarded as a loss compensa-ble under the Evacuation Claims Act. MwA Sogawa,ante, p.126. Assuming without deciding that the claim_ant's privilege of attending the university of cariforniaat less expense can be considered a form oi property cog_nizable under the Act, this privilege was not losi as aconsequence of his evacuation and temporary exclusionfrom that State. Since there was no time limit on theexereise of the privilege, the case may be iikened to thatof an evacuated person who found it necessary or desira_ble to purchase a new item of personal property, ilr"Othe period of his exclusion, to replace a.like a*icle tefibehind in storage when he was evacuated. Althoughneither the stored article nor his ownership of it was ifuse to him at the time of such a purchase, Lbviously thisproperty had not suffered ,,loss" or ,,damage,, within themeaning of those words as used in section 1 of the Act.Nor would the situation be changed if he thereafter foundthat he had no further use for the ord article either becauseof his purchase of the new one or because of a change inhis way of life. Cf . Fusataro Isozaki, ante, p. lg}. fi tnepresent claimant's right to a cheaper education in cali-fornia was "property,,, this was so only in the sense thatit was in the nature of an option to buy a service. Suchoption, however, was neither lost nor damaged and couldhave been exercised by him upon his return. Accordingly,all that was lost in a property sense was the opporturiiiyto- use the property at the desired time; a loss sutrerea nyall evacuated persons who left property behind and orrefor which no comp€nsation is provided by the Act.

The tuition and fees paid by the claimant to the Uni-versity of california for the semester which he was notpermitted to complete, however, stand on a different foot_

ition ai the Utah School.ll $$33.* * *

ducation reeeived by thebah was of less value thand to pay for it, hence noarded as a loss comp€nsa-ms Act. MarA Sogawa,; deciding that the claim-University of California

I a form of property cog-vilege was not lost as arnd temporary exelusion/as no time limit on thee may be likened to thatrd it necessary or desira-ersonal property, duringeplace a like article lefts evacuated. Althoughs ownership of it was ofpurchase, obviously thisor "damage" within thein Section 1 of the Act.ed if he thereafter foundold article either becauser because of a change inlabi, ante, p. lg3. If theraper education in Cali-o only in the sense thatto buy a service. Suchnor damaged and couldLisreturn. Accordingly,Ne was the opportunitytime; a loss suffered byroperty behind and oneided by the Act.re claimant to the Uni-ester which he was notband on a different foot-

295

ing. To the extent that he was required to duplicate thiswork by the University of Utah in order to receive creditfor it, the money thus paid to the University of Californiaconstituted a loss of personal property &s a re&sonable andnatural consequence of his evacuation because, to thatextent, as an immediate result of his evacuation, he wasprevented from receiving that for which he had actuallypaid. Cf.. Shuzo Kumano, ante,p.148.

The amount of his loss must be measured by that pro-portion of the semester's work which he had to repeat atUtah to satisfy his examiners there and obtain the neces-sary credit for his second year. He took 2 months' studyat Utah to do this, January and February 1943. TheCalifornia semester, being one-half of the academic year,or 4r/z months, was lost to claimant, therefore, to the ex-tent of 2 months. Since the total fees and tuition were$153 a semester at California, his loss would be Ag of thissum, or $68. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to becompensated in that amount.