Duckett Co v. United States, 108
| Citation | 69 L.Ed. 216,45 S.Ct. 38,266 U.S. 149 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 108,108 |
| Parties | A. W. DUCKETT & CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Don R. Almy and Ernie Adamson, both of New York City, for appellant.
The Attorney General and Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for the United States.
This is a claim against the United States for the value of the claimant's interest in Pier. No. 8 of the Bush Terminal Company under a lease that ran through September 30, 1919. The claim is based upon an implied contract alleged to have arisen from a taking for war purposes, for such time as might be necessary, of described portions of the Bush Terminal docks and warehouses, including the claimant's pier. The Court of Claims dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction upon the ground that the facts found excluded as matter of law the possibility that a contract should be implied and that therefore there could be no claim. Hill v. United States, 149 U. S. 593, 13 S. Ct. 1011, 37 L. Ed. 862.
Under the Act of August 29, 1916, c. 418, 39 Stat. 619, 645 (Comp. St. § 1974a), giving the President authority to take possession of any system of transportation, he took possession through the Secretary of War of the Bush Terminal, in Brooklyn, New York, including Pier No. 8, the Secretary issuing a general order dated December 31, 1917, 'To whom it may concern' which stated that 'possession and control is hereby taken * * * of the following described parts of a system of transportation * * * that is to say of those portions of the Bush Terminal docks and warehouse property described,' etc. 'Steps will be promptly taken to ascertain the fair compensation to be paid for the temporary use by the Government of the premises.' Notice of this order was served on the Bush Terminal Company on or about January 3, 1918, and at about the same time the receiver of A. W. Duckett & Co. was notified that 'the Bush Terminal has this day been requisitioned for the use of the embarkation service of the United States Army, and possession thereof has passed to the United States' and he was directed to make arrangements for vacating the premises. As the result of conferences the United States took possession of the pier at midnight, January 31, 1918.
It is unnecessary to go into the details of what was done later, as the acts that we have stated determined the relations of the parties. On the face of those acts it seems to us manifest that the United States, although not taking the fee, proceeded in rem as in eminent domain, and assumed to itself by paramount authority and power the possession and control of the piers named, against all the world. Ordinarily an unqualified taking in fee by eminent domain takes all interests and as it takes the res is not called upon to specify the interests that happen to exist. Whether or not for some purposes the new takers may be given the benefit of privity with the former holders, the accurate view would seem to be that such an exercise of eminent domain founds a new title and extinguishes all previous rights. Emery v. Boston Terminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of West Va. Ex Rel. Town Of South Charleston v. Partlow, (No. 10145)
...extinguished. 18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain, [133 W.Va. 168] Section 112. In the opinion in the case of Duckett & Company v. United States, 266 U. S. 149 45 S. Ct. 38, 69 L. ed. 216, the Supreme Court of the United States uses this language: "Ordinarily an unqualified taking in fee by eminent......
-
Addison v. Huron Stevedoring Corp., 11-12
...179, 48 S.Ct. 266, 72 L.Ed. 517; United States v. Welch, 217 U.S. 333, 339, 30 S.Ct. 527, 54 L.Ed. 787; Duckett & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 149, 151, 45 S.Ct. 38, 69 L.Ed. 216; United States v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U.S. 114, 117, 71 S.Ct. 670, 95 L.Ed. 6. Omitting the camouflage, this i......
-
State Ex Rel. Town Of South Charleston v. Partlow, 10145.
...proprietary rights are extinguished. 18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain, § 112. In the opinion in the case of Duckett & Company v. United States, 266 U.S. 149, 45 S.Ct. 38, 69 L.Ed. 216, the Supreme Court of the United States uses this language: "Ordinarily an unqualified taking in fee by eminent ......
-
State ex rel. Morrison v. Helm, 6692
...v. United States, 4 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 868; Phillips v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 1; A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 149, 45 S.Ct. 38, 69 L.Ed. 216; Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 182; United States v. 2979.72 Acres of Land, ......