Jennie Willink v. United States

Citation36 S.Ct. 422,240 U.S. 572,60 L.Ed. 808
Decision Date03 April 1916
Docket NumberNo. 180,180
PartiesJENNIE A. WILLINK, Executrix, etc., Appt., v. UNITED STATES
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. George A. King and William B. King, for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 573-574 intentionally omitted] Assistant Attorney General Thompson for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 575-577 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

Henry F. Willink sued to recover as upon an implied contract for an alleged taking of his property in the improvement of the harbor in the Savannah river at Savannah, Georgia. A recovery was denied (38 Ct. Cl. 693; 49 Ct. Cl. 701), and the claimant's executrix prosecutes this appeal.

The material facts disclosed by the findings are these: At Savannah the river is navigable and within the ebb and flow of the tide. Opposite the city is Hutchinson's island, a strip of which on the side towards the city was owned by the claimant. He there conducted a plant for repairing vessels. Among his facilities used in the business were a marine railway and a wharf. The former extended into the river and was protected by sheet piling 'where in the water.' A substantial portion of it lay below the mean high-water line, and the wharf seems also to have been below that line, although its location is not precisely stated. In the conduct of the claimant's business the vessels subjected to repair were drawn out of the river and lowered into it by means of the railway, and to prevent its lower end, 'which was under water at high tide,' from becoming seriously obstructed by deposits of mud the piling was driven on both sides. The piling was effectual for the purpose, but decayed in time and had to be replaced.

Prior to 1887 many improvements had been made in the harbor, and in that year a plan for further and extensive improvements was submitted to Congress, but was not approved. Among other changes this plan contemplated a widening of the river by cutting away a portion of Hutchinson's island, including that whereon the claimant's facilities were situate. On May 4, 1889, the harbor line, which theretofore had not reached the island or the claimant's facilities, was re-established by the Secretary of War, under § 12 of the act of August 11, 1888, chap. 860, 25 Stat. at L. 400, 425, in such manner that a part of the claimant's land and all of his facilities were brought within the harbor area. In 1890 another extended project, retaining the earlier proposal to widen the river by cutting away a portion of the island, was submitted to Congress and was approved. The estimated cost of this project was $3,500,000, which included $45,000 for 'possible land damages' to the island. A part of the larger sum was appropriated each year until the appropriations equaled the full estimate, which was in 1895. The appropriation of July 13, 1892, chap. 158, 27 Stat. at L. 88, 92, was accompanied by a provision that 'contracts may be entered into by the Secretary of War for such materials and work as may be necessary to complete the present project of improvement, to be paid for as appropriations may from time to time be made by law, not to exceed in the aggregate' so much of the estimate as remained unappropriated. A contract was then made for cutting away a portion of the island, including that whereon the claimant's facilities were situate, but this work never was done or undertaken, and the appropriations were otherwise exhausted and the project treated as completed.

In the summer of 1892 the condition of the claimant's wharf and piling became such that it was necessary to rebuild the one and to renew the other. While he was so engaged the engineer officer in charge of the harbor improvements requested him to desist and to remove all of his facilities that were within the harbor area as defined by the Secretary of War in 1889. The request was followed by a letter from the United States attorney for that district, notifying the claimant that in driving the piling he was obstructing navigation contrary to the act of September 19, 1890, chap. 907, 26 Stat. at L. 426, 454, 455, and that unless he desisted and 'all piling outside of the bulkhead line' was removed, he would be prosecuted. Because of this request and notice he ceased work upon the piling and wharf, but did not remove any of his facilities or surrender them or his land to the United States or any of its officers. On the contrary, he continued to operate his plant and use his marine railway and other facilities as best he could. Theretofore he was able to haul up on the railway and repair vessels of considerable draft, and the chief profit in his business came from that work; but thereafter, the renewal of the piling being prevented, deposits of mud filled up the entrance to the railway to such an extent that he was obliged to confine his work to smaller vessels. Even then it was necessary to be almost constantly dredging the entrance. This condition continued until December, 1897, when the Secretary of War re-established the harbor line as it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Rank v. Krug
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 13, 1950
    ...1011, 57 L.Ed. 1363; Hughes v. U. S., 1913, 230 U.S. 24, 33 S.Ct. 1019, 57 L.Ed. 1374, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 624; Willink v. U. S., 1916, 240 U.S. 572, 36 S.Ct. 422, 60 L.Ed. 808; U. S. v. Chicago, M. St. P. & P. R. Co., 1940, 312 U.S. 592, 313 U.S. 543, 61 S.Ct. 772, 85 L.Ed. 1064; Gibson v. U. ......
  • Hansen v. City of San Buenaventura
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1985
    ... ... law, and relied instead upon other rules of law applicable in other states, but not California. For the reasons stated, we will remand the matter ... (Hawaii App.1984) 678 P.2d 584, 590-592; United Gas Corp. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission (1961) 240 Miss. 405, ... ...
  • United States v. Kansas City Life Ins Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1950
    ...land, thereby impairing its value for farming.' Id. 109 Ct.Cl. at page 573, 74 F.Supp. at page 653. 6 Willink v. United States, 240 U.S. 572, 36 S.Ct. 422, 60 L.Ed. 808; Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U.S. 251, 35 S.Ct. 551, 59 L.Ed. 939; Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation C......
  • United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1940
    ...S.Ct. 144, 147, 70 L.Ed. 339; United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 320, 37 S.Ct. 380, 381, 61 L.Ed. 746; Willink v. United States, 240 U.S. 572, 580, 36 S.Ct. 422, 424, 60 L.Ed. 808; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U.S. 53, 62, 33 S.Ct. 667, 671, 57 L.Ed. 1063; Gibson v. United S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 5.03. Types of Collateral
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Delaware Commercial Real Estate Finance Law and Practice Title Chapter 5 Real Estate Lending
    • Invalid date
    ...245 (1829). See generally Allmond, supra.[101] United States v. Willow River Power Company, 334 U.S. 499 (1945); Willink v. United States, 240 U.S. 572 (1916); Oceanport v. State at *2; see also State v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 237 A.2d 579 (Del. Super. 1967); Harland & Hollingsworth at 453; C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT