Cameron Development Co. v. United States, 10997.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10997.,10997. |
| Parties | CAMERON DEVELOPMENT CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Fred R. Wilson and Geo. A. DeCottes, both of Sanford, Fla., for appellant.
Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Wilma C. Martin and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Attys., Dept. of Justice, both of Washington, D. C., H. S. Phillips, U. S. Atty., of Tampa, Fla., and W. D. Jones, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
The proceedings below were to determine the fair market value of 858 acres of land in Seminole County, Florida. The property belonged to appellant, and was a part of that taken by the United States in condemnation proceedings for use as a Naval Air Station.
After taking possession of the property, which had theretofore been used exclusively as pasture land, the United States excavated and removed approximately 83,000 cubic yards of shell marl from the property, using the shell for the construction of runways. At the trial appellant offered the testimony of several witnesses in an attempt to prove that these deposits greatly enhanced the market value of the property, but all this testimony was stricken upon motion of the Government. It is conceded that the sum awarded by the jury was just compensation for the property as pasture land, and the decisive question on appeal is whether the court committed reversible error in striking the proffered testimony.
The gist of this testimony was as follows: Shell marl had a commercial use as a stabilizer in the base of asphalt roads, and its price, in the vicinity at the time of the taking, was approximately 25¢ per cubic yard at the pit unmined. Appellant's property, at the time of the taking, contained deposits of shell marl in commercial quantities. At its price and weight, it could be mined commercially for consumers as much as 18 to 20 miles distant. Some counties in Florida, including Seminole County, had used shell marl in road construction. The deposits on appellant's property were sufficiently extensive to supply the base for a road approximately eight miles long if properly used. Similar deposits of shell marl were widespread throughout the coastal plains of Florida.
Just compensation, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, is the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money.1 In determining this value, the highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed, or is likely to be needed in the near future, is to be considered; but elements affecting value that depend upon events, which while possible are not fairly shown to be reasonably probable, should be excluded.2 The judicial ascertainment of fair market value may not rest upon speculation and conjecture, nor is any owner entitled to compensation for any increase in value that may result to the property because of its condemnation.3
The proof offered by appellant, measured by these settled standards, did not establish that the property was available for use as a source of supply of shell marl. No evidence was offered to prove that any market existed, or was reasonably likely to exist in the near future, at which this shell could be profitably sold. No showing was made that any purchaser was willing to pay any more for the land, because of its shell deposits, than its market value as pasture land.
The mere physical adaptability of the property to use as a source of supply of shell marl, in the absence of a market for its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. 320.0 Acres of Land, More or Less in Monroe County, State of Fla.
...10 Cir., 1975, 521 F.2d 13; United States v. Catlin, 7 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 661; Cameron Development Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 209. 27 The reasoning underlying these decisions is that since "the navigational privilege permits the Government to reduce the value of riparian......
-
Hoy v. Kansas Turnpike Authority
...v. United States, supra; United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 63 S.Ct. 276, 87 L.Ed. 336, 147 A.L.R. 55; Cameron Development Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 209, 310), but that market may not be established by, and the owner is not entitled to compensation for, any element resultin......
-
U.S. v. 8.41 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Orange County, State of Tex.
...which the property is adaptable and needed. United States v. Buhler, 305 F.2d 319, 327 (5th Cir. 1962); Cameron Development Co. v. United States, 145 F.2d 209, 210 (5th Cir. 1944). There is a presumption, however, in favor of the existing use of the land which can only be overcome if the la......
-
Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co. v. United States
...location of the bridge and accessory works be approved by the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers. 2 Cameron Development Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 209, 210; United States v. Rayno, 1 Cir., 136 F.2d 376. In these cases it was held that in condemning land the Government n......
-
Property pieces in compensation statutes: law's eulogy for Oregon's measure 37.
...512-13, (1923) (losses due to frustration of a business plan are generally not compensable); Cameron Development Co. v. United States, 145 F.2d 209, 210 (5th Cir. 1944) ("In determining this value, the highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed, or is lik......