Kanakanui v. United States
Decision Date | 06 August 1917 |
Docket Number | 2935. |
Parties | KANAKANUI et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The court below sustained a demurrer to the complaint of the plaintiffs in error in an action which they brought against the United States, in which it was alleged that in a prior action between the same parties the United States had sought to condemn, for the erection of a military post and fortification, a tract of land consisting of 4.3 acres together with water, riparian, and fishing rights, belonging to the plaintiffs in this action; that in said condemnation suit it was finally decreed that, upon payment into the registry of the court of the sum of $5,000, all the right title, and interest of the owners of said property should vest absolutely in the United States; that said money has not been paid, or any part thereof; that two years have elapsed since final judgment; that all the rights of the United States in the judgment have been lost to it; that at no time during said two years following said final judgment did the United States notify the plaintiffs, or either of them, that it did not claim under said judgment, 'but at all times did suffer said judgment to remain, and did claim under the same'; that the plaintiffs paid the sum of $1,100 attorney's fees in the preparation of their defense to said condemnation suit and the trial thereof, and the further sum of $64.85 for witness fees, and other expenses, all of which were reasonably incurred; and that they were damaged in the sum of $5,000 for the loss of the use of said property. For these sums, and for interest, the plaintiffs demanded judgment under the provisions of Act March 3, 1887 (24 Stat 505, c. 359), known as the Tucker Act, and under the provisions of section 505 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii of 1905, which provides as follows: David L. Withington, of Honolulu, T.H. (William R. Castle, W. A. Greenwell, and Alfred L. Castle, all of Honolulu, T.H., of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
John W. Preston, U.S. Atty., and Ed. F. Jared, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., and S. C. Huber, U.S. Atty., of Honolulu, T.H.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The only limitation upon the power of the United States to exercise the right of eminent domain is that just compensation shall be made for property taken. Just compensation means the full equivalent for the property taken. Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 326, 13 Sup.Ct. 622, 37 L.Ed. 463. By the terms of the judgment of condemnation as it is here pleaded, and by the rule sustained by the weight of authority, there was no taking of the property which was sought to be condemned. Lewis on Eminent Domain, (3d Ed.) Sec. 655. The United States had the right to and did abandon the proceeding. The complaint in the present action clearly shows that the plaintiffs suffered substantial damage by reason of the action of the defendant, and it must be conceded that the statute of Hawaii is just and equitable, in that it permits recovery for such damages.
The question here, however, is whether the United States has subjected itself to liability under that statute. Congress might have enacted that the condemnation suit be conducted according to common law, or by a procedure wholly irrespective of that of the territory of Hawaii. By the act of August 18, 1890 (26 Stat. 316), Congress made the general provision under which the condemnation suit was brought, which was that condemnation shall be conducted in accordance with the laws relating to suits for the condemnation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Crary
...confirmation, as excessive, the government has a right to decline to accept the awards and to dismiss this proceeding. See Kanakanui v. U. S. (C. C. A. 9) 244 F. 923; Owen v. U. S. (C. C. A. 5) 8 F.(2d) In this case I understand that there will be no conflicts as to the tract 212 b lying ma......
-
United States v. Meyer
...United States v. Crary, D.C., 1 F. Supp. 406; In re Condemnations for Improvement of Rouge River, D.C., 266 F. 105; Kanakanui v. United States, 9 Cir., 244 F. 923, 925; United States v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., C.C., 16 F. 524, 528. When as here, the United States is the condemning party, its......
-
United States v. Crary, 895.
...it would seem that the petition would nevertheless conform as near as may be to the requirements of the Code." In Kanakanui v. U. S. (C. C. A. 9) 244 F. 923, 925, the court had before it the act of August 18, 1890 (26 Stats. 315, 316), which authorized condemnation proceedings, "to be prose......
-
Barnidge v. United States
...427, 40 L.Ed. 576; United States v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., C.C., 16 F. 524; Owen v. United States, 5 Cir., 8 F.2d 992; Kanakanui v. United States, 9 Cir., 244 F. 923; Macfarland v. Elverson, 32 App.D. C. 81. The property will not be acquired in this proceeding until the money is not only av......