In re Military Training Camp in Prince George County, Va.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Citation260 F. 986
PartiesIn re MILITARY TRAINING CAMP IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VA.
Decision Date23 October 1919

260 F. 986

In re MILITARY TRAINING CAMP IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VA.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia.

October 23, 1919


[260 F. 987]

Hiram M. Smith, U.S. Atty., of Richmond, Va., for the United States.

Wilson M. Farr, of Fairfax C.H., Va., George H. Lamar, of Washington, D.C., Wyndham R. Meredith and Meredith & Meredith, all of Richmond, Va., and James A. Hefflin and A. L. Jones, both of Hopewell, Va., for sundry landowners.

WADDILL, District Judge.

On the 24th of June, 1919, the original petition in these proceedings was filed by the United States of America, having for its purpose the condemnation of 32 tracts or parcels of land, with the improvements thereon, in the county of Prince George, Va., in the Eastern district of Virginia, at and adjacent to Camp Lee, and on the 30th day of June, 1919, an amended petition, having for its object the same purpose, was also filed by leave of court. Subsequently, on the 10th day of September, 1919, an order was entered giving notice by publication to the tenants of the freehold, as required by law, made returnable before this court, at its courtroom in the city of Richmond, Va., on the 6th day of October, 1919, the first day of the next ensuing term.

On the return day of this process, sundry defendants appeared, some specially, and some generally, and by appropriate proceedings, by way of demurrer, by special plea, and motions to dismiss, raised the question of the jurisdiction of the court, and sought to contest the validity of the proceedings. The case is now before the court for consideration of the legal questions thus presented.

The government's petition sets forth that the same was filed by direction of the Attorney General of the United States, acting in this behalf in accordance with the request of the Secretary of War of the United States, who had certified that it was necessary and advantageous to the interests of the United States to acquire the lands described in and set forth in said petition; that the said lands were needed for the site, location, construction, and prosecution of works [260 F. 988] for a military training camp, and that the Secretary of War was acting pursuant to the provisions of the act of the 2d day of July, 1917 (Fed.Stat.Ann.Supp. 1918, p. 166; U.S. Comp.Stat.Temp.Supp. 1917, p. 363; 40 Stat. 241, c. 35 (Comp. St. 1918, Sec. 6911a)).

The petition further sets forth that the United States, acting through their proper officers and agents and duly authorized representatives, had made an effort to agree with the landowners upon the price and terms of purchase, but without avail. It is further averred that, at the time of the filing of the petition and amended petition, a state of war existed between the United States of America, on the one hand, and the Imperial German government and the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian government, on the other; that the interests of the landowners proposed to be taken by the United States were the fee-simple interests in and to said properties; and that an appropriation to pay for said lands was available, contained in the act entitled 'An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919,' approved July 9, 1918 (Act July 9, 1918, c. 143, 40 Stat. 845).

The grounds of defense interposed are briefly: First, that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and that the same can only be maintained in the circuit court of Prince George county, Va., where the lands lie; second, that the proceedings should not be entertained, because it is manifest that the lands are not sought for public use, such as is authorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States, warranting the exercise of the right of eminent domain in respect thereto; and, third, because no appropriation exists whereby the lands condemned can be paid for. These two last positions will be considered in the order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 7148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 1940
    ...904, 911, 33 U.S.C. ß 594, 33 U.S.C.A. ß 594, had been complied with. This was the correct action. In re Military Training Camp, D.C., 260 F. 986. It was not necessary that funds for satisfaction of the awards be deposited in advance of the taking. The statute does not so provide but rather......
  • United States v. Lovely, No. 8783.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • May 28, 1963
    ...of the United States." found in section 39-81 which Lovely asserts is exclusively applicable. Cf. In re Military Training Camp, 260 F. 986 (E.D.Va. In Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442, 83 L.Ed. 455 (1939), a prisoner of the State of Georgia filed a petition for a writ of ha......
  • United States v. Prince William County
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • December 15, 1934
    ...F. Co. v. Llewellyn, 156 Va. 258, 280, 157 S. E. 809, 162 S. E. 601; 20 C. J. 844 (note 3). The case of In re Military Training Camp, 260 F. 986, 990 (D. C. E. D. Va.), cited by defendant's counsel as contra, was a proceeding for condemnation under the general statute. The Act in this case,......
3 cases
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 7148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 1940
    ...904, 911, 33 U.S.C. ß 594, 33 U.S.C.A. ß 594, had been complied with. This was the correct action. In re Military Training Camp, D.C., 260 F. 986. It was not necessary that funds for satisfaction of the awards be deposited in advance of the taking. The statute does not so provide but rather......
  • United States v. Lovely, No. 8783.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • May 28, 1963
    ...of the United States." found in section 39-81 which Lovely asserts is exclusively applicable. Cf. In re Military Training Camp, 260 F. 986 (E.D.Va. In Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442, 83 L.Ed. 455 (1939), a prisoner of the State of Georgia filed a petition for a writ of ha......
  • United States v. Prince William County
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • December 15, 1934
    ...F. Co. v. Llewellyn, 156 Va. 258, 280, 157 S. E. 809, 162 S. E. 601; 20 C. J. 844 (note 3). The case of In re Military Training Camp, 260 F. 986, 990 (D. C. E. D. Va.), cited by defendant's counsel as contra, was a proceeding for condemnation under the general statute. The Act in this case,......

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