Kincaid v. United States
Citation | 35 F.2d 235 |
Decision Date | 13 August 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 355.,355. |
Parties | KINCAID v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Wm. C. Dufour, John St. Paul, Jr., and T. J. Freeman, all of New Orleans, La., Harry H. Russell, of Monroe, La., C. J. Ellis, of Rayville, La., and Streett & Burnside, of Lake Village, Ark., for plaintiff.
Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., J. D. Modisette, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of Jennings, La., and John C. Dyott, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo.
This is a suit in equity against the United States, the Secretary of War, Chief of Engineers, the Mississippi River Commission, and its individual members, and the district engineer in charge of work in this district, to enjoin the construction of certain levees and other works contemplated by the Act of Congress approved May 15, 1928, 70th Congress, Pub. No. 391, commonly known as the Flood Control Act (33 USCA §§ 702a-702m, 704).
The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner in fee simple of 160 acres of land, with improvements thereon of the value of $9,000, situated between the levees to be constructed on either side of the Bœuf river basin and within the channel through which a portion of the waters from the main stream of the Mississippi river will be diverted at flood stage by what is called a "fuse plug" outlet, located just below Arkansas City, in the state of Arkansas; that the purpose is to use this basin as a diversion channel to lower the level of water in the Mississippi river and to carry it into Red river at or near the head of the Atchafalaya; that the effect will be to relieve the pressure on the main levees and to protect property on both sides of the Mississippi from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to the Passes, as a part of the adopted project to control flood waters in the Mississippi valley, and that it is not intended in any way for the benefit of the property within said floodway or diversion channel, but on the contrary, the same will be destroyed and rendered valueless. The plaintiff further alleges as follows:
He also alleges that his said land is at this time in a high state of cultivation, and has thereon his residence and other valuable buildings; that it now lies back of the Mississippi river levees, and is protected at all times from the waters of that river, "if the levees hold"; that if the proposed plan is carried out it is purposely intended that his property, with that of others, will form the bed of said diversion channel and serve as a storage basin for waters of the Mississippi, making it wholly unfit for farming, for which it is solely valuable; that this will in effect be the taking of petitioner's property by the government without due process of law and without just compensation, contrary to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the Federal Constitution; and that defendants are now advertising for bids for the construction of said guide levees, and unless restrained bids will be received and contracts let therefor in due course.
It is also further alleged as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kane County v. Elmhurst Nat. Bank
...has been held or approved in dictum by federal courts (Bonaparte v. Camden & A.R. Co., 3 F.Cas. No. 1,617 (C.C.N.J.1830); Kincaid v. United States, 35 F.2d 235, later trial 37 F.2d 602 (W.D.La.1929), aff'd 49 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1931), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.......
-
Board of Com'rs for Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. v. St. Landry Parish School Bd.
...seq.; see, for early history, also United States v. Sponenbarger, 1939, 308 U.S. 256, 60 S.Ct. 225, 84 L.Ed. 230 and Kincaid v. United States, D.C.W.D.La.1929, 35 F.2d 235. Solely at issue is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the levee board is required to reimburse a public ag......
-
Sponenbarger v. United States
...District Court of the Western District of Louisiana, held that a right of action was alleged, and granted the injunction prayed. (Kincaid v. U. S., 35 F.2d 235, and 37 F.2d 602). The latter decree was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. United States v. Kincaid, 49 F.2d ......
-
Thomas v. City of Horse Cave
... ... and reiterated in 20 C.J. 680, 51 C.J. 494; Kincaid v ... United States (D. C.) 35 F.2d 235, 247 ... Railroad ... companies and ... ...
-
Chapter 13 "TAKING" STOCK OF FLOOD CLAIMS
...Cedar Point Nursery, 141 S. Ct. at 2078.[96] Hurley v. Kincaid (Kincaid II), 285 U.S. 95 (1932).[97] Kincaid v. United States (Kincaid I), 35 F.2d 235 (W.D. La. 1929).[98] Id. at 240.[99] Kincaid II, 285 U.S. at 104-05. The Supreme Court's decision proved to be prescient because the federal......