International Paper Co v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 January 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
| Citation | 51 S.Ct. 176,75 L.Ed. 410,282 U.S. 399 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John W. Davis and Montgomery B. Angell, both of New York City, for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 400-401 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 402-404 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a proceeding by the petitioner to recover compensation for property rights in water of the Niagara River alleged to have been taken by the United States for war purposes. The Niagara Falls Power Company by private grant to it, Letters Patent from the State of New York and acts of the Legislature of that State, was the owner so far as the law of New York could make it owner of land and water rights on the American side of the River above the Falls. Included in them was a power canal through which the Power Company was authorized to divert 10,000 cubic feet per second, at the time of the alleged taking. From this canal the petitioner, the International Paper Company, was entitled, by conveyance and lease, to draw and was drawing 730 cubic feet per second,-a right that by the law of New York was a corporeal hereditament and real estate.
On December 28, 1917, the Secretary of War wrote to the Power Company that 'The Presid ent of the United States by virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in him, and by reason of the exigencies of the national security and defence, hereby places an order with you for and hereby requisitions the total quantity and output of the electrical power which is capable of being produced and/or delivered by you through the use of all waters diverted or capable of being diverted through your intake canal and for your plants and machinery connected therewith.' Immediate and continuous delivery of such power was directed and it was added 'You will be paid fair and just compensation for power delivered hereunder.' At the same time an agreement was made by the Secretary of War and the Power Company, (reciting that the President has requisitioned the power as above,) to the effect that the Secretary of War 'acting for and in behalf of the United States' until further notice waives delivery of the power to the United States on the express condition that the Power Company shall distribute such power as provided in a schedule naming companies and amounts but not naming the petitioner, and on the other side the Power Company waives all right of compensation by reason of said requisition if permitted to carry on its business and to sell consistently with the exigencies of the national security and defence. On December 29, the representative of the Secretary of War wrote to the secretary of the Power Company And on December 31 telegraphed to the counsel of the petitioner 'Power Company has been directed to take water hitherto used by International Paper Co.' The petitioner had been notified of what was to happen but was allowed time to run out its stock on hand. On February 7, 1918, its use of the water ceased and was not resumed until midnight November 30, 1918, when the order of December 28 was abrogated. The Court of Claims found that the shutting off of the water from the petitioner's mill cost it $304,685.36, direct overhead expense, but gave judgment that the petition be dismissed.
The Government has urged different defences with varying energy at different stages of the case. The latest to be pressed is that it does not appear that the action of the Secretary was authorized by Congress. We shall give scant consideration to such a repudiation of responsibility. The Secretary of War in the name of the President, with the power of the country behind him, in critical time of war, requisitioned what was needed and got it. Nobody...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...41 S. Ct. 569, 65 L. Ed. 1084. Compare Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 268, 296, 20 L. Ed. 135; International Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 399, 51 S. Ct. 176, 75 L. Ed. 410; Russian Volunteer Fleet Corporation v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 51 S. Ct. 229, 75 L. Ed. 473. And at ......
-
United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson
...Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co., 142 U.S. 254, 272, 12 S.Ct. 173, 177, 35 L.Ed. 1004; cf. International Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 399, 51 S.Ct. 176, 75 L.Ed. 410. 2 Private Laws of North Carolina, 1909, c. 76, p. 185. 3 Carolina-Tennessee Power Co. v. Hiawassee River Pow......
-
United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co United States v. Potter United States v. Erreca United States v. James Stevinson United States v. Stevinson United States v. 8212 Securities Co
...supra, 229 U.S. at page 62, 33 S.Ct. at page 671, 57 L.Ed. 1063; and cases cited. And, referring to International Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 399, 51 S.Ct. 176, 75 L.Ed. 410; United States v. River Rouge Imp. Co., 269 U.S. 411, 46 S.Ct. 144, 70 L.Ed. 339, and cases cited, they obse......
-
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...the use of it to private parties, and thus reimburse itself for the expenses of the improvement.' In International Paper Company v. United States, 282 U.S. 399, 51 S.Ct. 176, 75 L.Ed. 410, the government made a war-time requisition of electrical power, and was held bound to make compensatio......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...of the Union’s interests in shared waters have reappeared periodically in the Court’s opinions. See Int’l Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 399, 406–07 (1931); State of Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508, 521–28 (1941); United States v. Willow River Power Co.,......
-
A River Used to Run Through It: Protecting the Public Right to a Sustainable Water System
...129 Fed. Cl. 722, 726, 730–31 (2016). The Klamath Court cited Tulare Lake and Casitas , as well as: Int’l Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 399 (1931); United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950); Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963); and Washoe Cnty. v. United States, 319......
-
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Common Law of Groundwater Rights: Finding a Consistent Path Forward for Groundwater Allocation.
...times in which Congress acknowledged and provided funding to compensate for the taking of water rights); Int'l Paper Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 399, 407 (1931); State Dep't of Ecology v. Grimes, 852 P.2d 1044,1054-55 (Wash. 1993) ("A vested water right is a type of private property that......
-
What's yours can be mine: are there any private takings after Kelo v. City of New London?
...the construction of the state court."). (71.) 256 U.S. 135 (1921). (72.) Id. at 154. (73.) 269 U.S. 55 (1925). (74.) Id. at 63. (75.) 282 U.S. 399 (76.) 269 U.S. at 66. (77.) 270 N.Y. 333 (1936). (78.) Id. at 338. (79.) Id. at 339 (citing Pocantico Water Works Co. v. Bird, 130 N. Y. 249). (......