Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 2153.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
Citation296 F. 20
Decision Date05 February 1924
PartiesOLD DOMINION LAND CO. v. UNITED STATES. [1]
Docket Number2153.

296 F. 20

OLD DOMINION LAND CO.
v.
UNITED STATES. [1]

No. 2153.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 5, 1924


[296 F. 21]

Thomas H. Willcox, of Norfolk, Va., and J. Winston Read, of Newport News, Va. (R. G. Bickford, of Newport News, Va., on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Paul W. Kear, U.S. Atty., and Luther B. Way, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Norfolk, Va.

Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

The main question to be decided is whether the District Court was right in holding that the United States had the right to condemn certain lands of the Old Dominion Land Company and in refusing a motion to dismiss the proceedings. On July 1, 1918, the government leased three vacant tracts of land from the land company for the year beginning July 1, 1918. The lease was continued by renewals until July 1, 1922. The right of renewal included the period of the Great War and the time necessary for the return of federal troops from Europe. The contracts provided that all buildings and other improvements should remain the property of the government, with the right of removal during the lease and its renewals and within 30 days after the expiration of the term of the last renewal. The property was intended and was used in the construction thereon of quartermaster warehouses in connection with the embarkation of troops and the army supply base at Norfolk. The warehouses, railroad switches, and sidings and other structures cost the government $1,522,000. The land company refused to continue the renewal expiring June 30, 1922, and gave notice that it would hold the government to its contract period of 30 days in which it could remove the warehouses.

An effort was made by the Secretary of War to purchase the land in 1919, which was unsuccessful, because of failure to agree on the price. The Act of March 8, 1922 (42 Stat. 418), amended the Army Appropriation Act of 1919 (41 Stat. 104), 'so as to release appropriations for the completion of the acquisition of real estate in certain cases and making additional appropriations therefor. ' This act contained the appropriation, 'For quartermaster warehouses Newport News, Virginia, $223,670. ' The similar Appropriation Act of July 1, 1922 (42 Stat. 767, 777), appropriating funds for the acquisition of real estate in certain cases, specified, 'For quartermaster warehouses at Newport News. ' These acts related to the property herein involved. On July 9, 1922, the War Department sought to acquire the land by purchase under authority of the statutes above recited, offering to pay $3,000 an acre. On July 28, 1922, the board of directors of the land company refused the offer, and notified the War Department of the refusal by letter on July 31, 1922, the day after the expiration of the 30 days within which the government had the right to remove the warehouses and other structures. On July 29, one day before the expiration of [296 F. 22] the 30 days, the government filed its petition for the condemnation of the property.

It is first argued against the right of condemnation that it is not authorized but negatived by the Acts of March 8 and July 1, 1922. The acts do say that the appropriations are made for the 'completion of the acquisition of real estate, etc.,' giving thus the general indication that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 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
    ...impeaches the original purpose, namely, betterment of navigation and flood control. Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20, affirmed 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162. The evidence in the record, including that tendered by defendants, tends to disclose only a differe......
  • United States v. Big Bend Transit Co., No. 53.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • December 31, 1941
    ...etc., charges. See Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282, 13 S.Ct. 361, 37 L.Ed. 170; Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20; Id., 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464, certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 7......
  • Enbridge Pipeline (east Tex.) L.P. v. Timber, No. 06-09-00046-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 27, 2010
    ...Co., 264 F.2d 112 (3rd Cir.1959); Anderson-Tully Co. v. United States, 189 F.2d 192 (5th Cir.1951); Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 296 F. 20 (4th Cir.1924).i. Anderson-Tully Pipeline relies most on Anderson-Tully, but the analysis of that case distinguishes326 S.W.3d 409all the abo......
  • United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch, No. 5373-5378.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 21, 1945
    ...such exercise of power, and we know of none. Another case upon which the TVA relies is Old Dominion Land Company v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20, affirmed 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162, which is cited as approving a taking to save economic loss to the public. In that case, howe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 7148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 1940
    ...impeaches the original purpose, namely, betterment of navigation and flood control. Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20, affirmed 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162. The evidence in the record, including that tendered by defendants, tends to disclose only a differe......
  • United States v. Big Bend Transit Co., No. 53.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • December 31, 1941
    ...etc., charges. See Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282, 13 S.Ct. 361, 37 L.Ed. 170; Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20; Id., 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464, certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 7......
  • Enbridge Pipeline (east Tex.) L.P. v. Timber, No. 06-09-00046-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 27, 2010
    ...Co., 264 F.2d 112 (3rd Cir.1959); Anderson-Tully Co. v. United States, 189 F.2d 192 (5th Cir.1951); Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 296 F. 20 (4th Cir.1924).i. Anderson-Tully Pipeline relies most on Anderson-Tully, but the analysis of that case distinguishes326 S.W.3d 409all the abo......
  • United States Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch, No. 5373-5378.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 21, 1945
    ...such exercise of power, and we know of none. Another case upon which the TVA relies is Old Dominion Land Company v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20, affirmed 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162, which is cited as approving a taking to save economic loss to the public. In that case, howe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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