293.080 ACRES OF LAND, ETC. v. United States
Decision Date | 09 January 1959 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 12986 (T-1605-A),12988 (T-1605-C),12989 (J-846).,12987 (T-1605-B) |
Citation | 169 F. Supp. 305 |
Parties | 293.080 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, SITUATE IN WESTMORELAND COUNTY, Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA, and Stanley Sulkosky, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
John Gavin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for the United States.
Albert M. Nichols, Greensburg, Pa., Thomas L. Wentling, B. A. Karlowitz, Patterson, Crawford, Arensberg & Dunn, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.
These cases are before the court on exceptions filed by the United States to an award in plaintiffs' favor in the aggregate sum of $33,500 made by three commissioners in land condemnation proceedings. The Commission was appointed by this court under Rule 71A of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. The Commission held hearings, took testimony and received other evidence, viewed the condemned property and in due course filed its report containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The exceptions filed by the United States are timely and will be considered as objections as provided in Rule 53(e) (2). Although six objections were filed, the Government makes three contentions:
1. Plaintiffs' witnesses who testified to value were not qualified to so testify.
2. The Commission's findings as to value are based upon improper and erroneous measures of value.
3. The amount of the award was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence.
The United States requests a new trial or in the alternative that a remittitur be entered reducing the amount of the awards.
At the outset it is noticed that Rule 71A(h) provides that when a Commission is appointed, it shall have the powers of a master as provided in subdivision (c) of Rule 53. Its action and report shall be determined by majority and its findings and report shall have the effect, and be dealt with by the court in accordance with the practice prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Rule 53. Rule 53 requires the court to accept the Commissioner's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. It also provides that the court after hearing may adopt the report, or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part, or may receive further evidence or may recommit it with instructions.
A hearing has been had on the Government's objections, counsel have been heard at oral argument and have filed briefs which have been considered. The court suggested and Government counsel has supplied, as evidence for the record, information as to the time of completion of the dam proper and time of the installation of the top gates of the Conemaugh Dam. This additional evidence in no wise affects the findings or the report of the Commission.
The plaintiffs are the owners of three contiguous tracts of subsurface coal property which were operated by them as a single coal mine, and Sulkosky and his wife own a fourth tract on which he operates a dairy farm. The Government concedes that title to the properties is not in dispute and is in plaintiffs.
The condemnation by the Government is pursuant to various acts of Congress, particularly the Flood Control Act of Congress, approved June 28, 1938, 52 Stat. 1215, 33 U.S.C.A. § 701b et seq., and other acts which authorized the construction, operation and maintenance of the Conemaugh Dam and Reservoir on the Conemaugh River, Pennsylvania, Ohio River Basin. Easements only were taken in these cases. The declaration of taking sets out that the estates taken for public uses are as follows:
In the Complaint, however, the Government says that the estate taken, that is with regard to the coal, is the perpetual right and easement to flood all the coal or mining rights in the Pittsburgh vein or seam in and underlying Tracts T-1605A, T-1605B and T-1605C, Conemaugh River Reservoir Project, as may be necessary and as is affected by and resulting from, etc. The Commission awarded damages to the landowners in the sum of $30,000 for the coal mine and $3,500 for the damages resulting from the flowage easement on the farm, Tract J-846, distributed among the various owners.
The easements acquired by the Government in these cases are in nearly all respects similar to the flowage easements acquired by the Government in two cases before the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit, United States v. 2,648.31 Acres of Land, 218 F.2d 518, and United States v. 2979.72 Acres of Land, 218 F. 2d 524, in which the decisions were written by the late Chief Judge Parker. He discussed the law and indicated the measure of damages to be used in determining just compensation to the landowner. He said, at page 523:
In the second decision, page 524, Judge Parker, however, is discussing a set of facts more analogous to the factual situation in the instant cases. What was taken in the second case before Judge Parker was the right to flood permanently the entire 1540 acres of land, leaving no interest of any value to the owner of the prior easement. He then said, page 525:
In the cases before me perpetual easements are taken, but the Government claims and says that the flooding will be but intermittent, leaving to the landowners whatever use may be made of the property, except for the servitude of the easement. As to the farm tract, that is, Tract No. J-846, the rule is to be applied in the same manner as Judge Parker indicated in his first decision, that is the measure of damages is the difference in value before and after the taking and not the entire fee value.
However, unlike the cases cited, as to the Pittsburgh seam of coal the property owners have been compelled by the State of Pennsylvania to cease all operations because of the danger of the water rising to the 975 foot level. As a result and...
To continue reading
Request your trial- United States v. 765.56 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
-
State By and Through State Highway Commission v. Nunes
...For topsoil, sand and gravel.'A. Yes I have.'2 Cade v. United States, 213 F.2d 138 (4th Cir., 1954); 293.080 Acres of Land, Etc. v. United States, 169 F.Supp. 305 (D.C.W.D.Penn.1959); Foster v. Mississippi State Highway Comm., Miss., 140 So.2d 267 (1962); State by and through Road Commissio......
-
West Virginia Dept. of Highways v. Berwind Land Co.
...arrive at an amount of just compensation. See also Cade v. United States, 213 F.2d 138 (4th Cir. 1954); 293.080 Acres of Land, Etc. v. United States, 169 F.Supp. 305 (D.C.W.D.Penn.1959); U. S. v. Land in Dry Bed of Rosamond Lake, 143 F.Supp. 314, 322 (D.C.Cal.1956); Consumers Power Co. v. A......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Foeller
...from the surface right, the interest in which had been previously acquired by appellant separately. In 293.080 Acres of Land, Etc. v. United States (W.D.Pa.), 169 F.Supp. 305, 311, the court quoted from the Georgia Kaolin Co. v. United States cases [5 Cir., 214 F.2d 284, 286] that "there ca......