Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 2153. |
| Citation | 296 F. 20 |
| Parties | OLD DOMINION LAND CO. v. UNITED STATES. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
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.
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 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 appropriations were to be applied in payment of purchase money contracted for or to be ascertained by condemnation proceedings already begun or authorized. But this general provision must yield to the clearly expressed particular provision that the property to be acquired was the land 'for the quartermaster warehouses at Newport News,' although no proceedings for its acquisition had been instituted. Such clearly expressed meaning cannot be altered by the tenor of preliminary committee reports or congressional discussion. United States v. Chase, 135 U.S. 255, 262, 10 Sup.Ct. 756, 34 L.Ed. 117.
The position next taken is that the government is attempting to condemn land in order that it may save itself from the loss of the value of the warehouses and other structures placed on it, and that it has no intention of using the land for any public purpose, but on the contrary intends to lease or sell it to private persons for business purposes. The court cannot deny the truth or good faith of the expressed declaration in the statute that the property is to be taken for the plainly public use of quartermaster warehouses. In Sears v. City of Akron, 246 U.S. 242, 251, 38 Sup.Ct. 245, 248 (62 L.Ed. 688), the Supreme Court says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Meyer
...nothing in this document 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 t......
-
United States v. Big Bend Transit Co.
...liens, rents, 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, 5......
-
Enbridge Pipeline (east Tex.) L.P. v. Timber
...L. & W.R. 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 distinguishesall the above-c......
-
United States v. 12,918.28 A. OF LAND IN WEBSTER PARISH
...and the expediency of the taking are matters to be determined by the Secretary of War and not by the Court. See 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; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464, certiorari denied 293......