In re Manderson
Decision Date | 16 August 1892 |
Citation | 51 F. 501 |
Parties | In re Manderson et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
J Warren Coulston and Samuel Dickson, (Henry S. White, U.S Atty., and C. V. D. Joline, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
Wm. C Hannis, for defendants in error.
Before DALLAS, Circuit Judge, and BUTLER and WALES, District Judges.
Proceedings were instituted in the court below for the condemnation of certain lands lying within the state of New Jersey, and which are required by the United States for continuing the improvement of the harbor at Philadelphia. A petition was filed by the proper officer of the government, describing the lands necessary to be taken, naming their owners, and setting forth the substance of the several acts of congress which, it is alleged, authorize the said proceedings. The acts of congress referred to in the petition are:
(1) The act of March 3, 1891, entitled 'An act making appropriation for sundry civil expenses of the government for the fiscal year ending June, thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, and for other purposes,' and containing the following appropriation:
26 U.S.St. 977.
(2) The act of April 24, 1888, entitled 'An act to facilitate the prosecution of works projected for the improvement of rivers and harbors,' which reads as follows:
'That the secretary of war may cause proceedings to be instituted, in the name of the United States, in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings, for the acquirement by condemnation of any land, right of way, or material needed to enable him to maintain, operate, or prosecute works for the improvement of rivers and harbors for which provision has been made by law; such proceedings to be prosecuted in accordance with the laws relating to suits for the condemnation of property of the states wherein the proceedings may be instituted: provided, however, that when the owner of such land, right of way, or material shall fix a price for the same, which in the opinion of the secretary of war shall be reasonable, he may purchase the same at such price without further delay: and provided, further, that the secretary of war is hereby authorized to accept donations of lands or materials required for the maintenance or prosecution of such works.' 25 U.S.St. 94.
(3) The act of August 1, 1888, entitled 'An act to authorize condemnation of land for sites of public building, and other purposes,' which reads thus:
Reference is also made in the petition to the act of congress of August 11, 1888, whereby the sum of $500,000 was appropriated for improving the harbor at Philadelphia by the removal of Smith's island and Windmill island, in the state of Pennsylvania, and Petty's island, in the state of New Jersey, or such parts of them, and the shoals adjacent thereto, as may be required:
'Provided, that no part of this sum shall be expended until the title to the lands forming said islands shall be acquired and vested in the United States without charge to the latter beyond three hundred thousand dollars of the sum herein appropriated.' 25 U.S.St. 403.
The petition further states that the secretary of war...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGrew v. Granite Bituminous Paving Co.
... ... payment of consequential damages for a change of grade then ... it did not provide due process of law and could not confer ... the power. Chamberlain v. Elizabethtown, 41 N.J.Eq ... 43; Chaffee's Appeal, 56 Mich. 244; In re ... Manderson, 51 F. 501; Lewis Em. Domain (2 Ed.), secs ... 341, 365; Elliott Roads and Streets (2 Ed.), sec. 197; ... Smith v. Sedalia, 152 Mo. 302. (10) This court has ... consistently held in construing section 21, article 2, ... Constitution, that consequential as well as actual damages ... must be ... ...
-
Yarborough v. North Carolina Park Commission
... ... conclusion of law that ample provision has not been made for ... awarding "just compensation" to those whose ... property may be appropriated to the public use. The defendant ... says that, in any event, the faith of the state is a ... sufficient guaranty of payment. In re Manderson (C. C ... A.) 51 F. 501; Shoemaker v. U. S., 147 U.S ... 282, 302, 13 S.Ct. 361, 37 L.Ed. 170; U.S. v. Gettysburg ... E. Ry. Co., 160 U.S. 668, 16 S.Ct. 427, 40 L.Ed. 576 ... It is ... next insisted that the act of 1927, is a private law, the ... enactment of which is ... ...
-
Mau v. Stoner
... ... Co. v. Johnson (Tex.), 29 S.W. 428; ... Austin v. State (Tenn.), 48 S.W. 305; White v ... Ins. Co. (Me.), 22 A. 167; State v. Main, 69 ... Conn. 133.) Courts will not, however, take judicial notice of ... the contents of their own records in other causes. ( U. S ... v. Manderson (C. C. A.), 51 F. 501; Ry. Co. v ... Andrews, 34 Kan. 563; Enix v. Miller, 54 Iowa ... 551; Loomis v. Griffin, 78 Iowa 482; Garretson ... v. Farrall, 92 Iowa 728; Anderson v. Cecil ... (Md.), 28 A. 1074; 1 Whart. on Ev., Sec. 326; ... Caldwell v. Bruggerman, 8 Minn. 286; ... ...
-
White v. Central Dispensary and Emergency Hospital
...it can act only upon the facts appearing in the record before it. Fitzgerald v. Evans, 8 Cir., 49 F. 426, 1892; In re Manderson, 3 Cir., 51 F. 501, 1892; Divide Creek Irrigation Dist. v. Hollingsworth, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 859, 96 A.L.R. 937, 1934; Bush v. Tecumseh Nat. Bank, 64 Neb. 451, 90 N.......