Old Dominion Land Co v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 55,55 |
| Citation | 269 U.S. 55,46 S.Ct. 39,70 L.Ed. 162 |
| Parties | OLD DOMINION LAND CO. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. J. Winston Read, of Newport News, Va., Thomas H. Willcox, of Norfolk, Va., and R. G. Bickford, of Newport News, Va., for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 56-61 intentionally omitted] Mr. Blackburn Esterline, of Chicago, Ill., and the Attorney General, for the United States.
This is a proceeding for the condemnation of land in Newport News, Virginia, for the use of the United States. Act of August 1, 1888, c. 728, 25 Stat. 357 (Comp. St. §§ 6909, 6910). It has resulted in a condemnation fixing the sum to be paid, subject to questions of law reserved by the plaintiff in error, the Old Dominion Land Company, at the trial and decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 296 F. 20. During the late war the Government took leases of the land from the Old Dominion Land Company for military purposes and put structures upon it costing more than a million and a half dollars. The leases were for short terms and were renewed, until in 1922 the lessor refused to renew them again. By the terms of the agreements the United States had a right to remove the structures but not beyond thirty days from the termination. An offer to purchase the land was made by the United States but was refused and this proceeding was instituted on July 29, 1922, just before the thirty days allowed by the leases had run out. The main contentions of the plaintiff in error are that the Acts of Congress relied upon do not authorize the taking attempted here; that one of those acts is unconstitutional, and that the taking although it might be for the benefit of the United States, to save its buildings, was not a taking for public use. We are of opinion that these contentions so far as material to the case cannot be sustained and that the decision below was right.
The statute authorizes this proceeding. The Appropriation Act of July 11, 1919, c. 8, 41 Stat. 104, 128, and its amendments of the same year (chapter 44, 41 Stat. 278, and chapter 90, 41 Stat. 453), had stopped the purchase of land in connection with military purposes generally, except in certain cases when it was more economical to buy than to pay rent or damages. This act was further amended how- ever by the Act of March 8, 1922, c. 100, § 1, 42 Stat. 418, so as to 'authorize completion of the acquisition of the real estate hereinafter specified in respect whereof requisition notices had been served or given before July 11, 1919, * * * or in respect whereof agreements had been made for purchase thereof, or proceedings begun for condemnation thereof.' 'For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section the following amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated, to wit: * * * For quartermaster warehouses, Newport News, Virginia, $223,670.' This is the land in question. By section 3 of the same Act the Secretary of War was authorized to renew leases in order to enable the Government to remove its buildings and other property, and to approve awards and to have new awards made for the purchase or condemnation of land necessary in his judgment for the operation of water plants now located thereon, etc., provided 'that any addition to the value of the premises resulting from the improvements thereto or in the vicinity thereof made by or at the expense of the United States shall be excluded from the sum paid to or recovered by the owners.' The later Deficiencies Appropriation Act of July 1, 1922, c. 258, 42 Stat. 767, 777, supplies deficiencies: 'Sites for military purposes: For completion of acquisition of real estate as authorized by' the last mentioned Act: 'For quartermaster warehouses, Newport News, Virginia, $223,670.'
It is argued that the general purpose of this exception to the stopping of expenditures was only to carry out agreements by which the Government already was bound; and that the specific appropriations were made only in case the property mentioned was the object of such previous agreement. No doubt the general purpose was that suggested, but the rest of the Act showed that the appropriation was not confined to that alone, and the specific unqualified mention of the land in question as land of which the acquisition was to be completed overrides the general statement, however much confirmed by citations from the congressional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 70.39 Acres of Land
...take is a matter solely within the prerogative of the Executive Department rather than the Judiciary, Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 1925, 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162; Mead v. City of Portland, 1906, 200 U.S. 148, 26 S.Ct. 171, 50 L.Ed. 413. The United States can "always......
-
United States v. Certain Parcels of Land
...v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 1899, 123 Cal. 535, 56 P. 453; St. John v. Kidd, 1864, 26 Cal. 263; see: Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 1925, 269 U.S. 55, 65, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L. Ed. 162; Baglin v. Cusenier Co., 1911, 221 U.S. 580, 597, 31 S.Ct. 669, 55 L.Ed. 863; Anderson-Tully Co. v. Un......
-
Gregory Marina, Inc. v. City of Detroit
...this subject 'Its decision is entitled to deference until it is shown to involve an impossibility.' Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66, 46 S.Ct. 39, 40, 70 L.Ed. 162. Any departure from this judicial restraint would result in courts deciding on what is and is not a gove......
-
United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land
...funds. This ground of appeal is not argued in her brief and was withdrawn at the oral argument. 18 Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162; Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581, 587, 43 S.Ct. 442, 67 L.Ed. 809; City of Oakland v. United......
-
Taken by the Fifth: The Fifth Amendment 'Taking Clause' and Intellectual Property
...determining whether that power is being exercised for a public purpose is an extremely narrow one. See Old Dominion Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66; United States ex rel. TVA v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, "Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order -- these are s......
-
Trouble in Fort Trumbull: Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development in Kelo v. City of New London
...of almost fifty miles of railroad track along with a subsequent conveyance to Amtrak); Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55 (1925) (affirming condemnation of land for use by the United States military); Rindge Co. v. County of L.A., 262 U.S. 700 (1923) (affirming condemnation......
-
Constitutional Review of State Eminent Domain Legislation: Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
...'[i]ts decision is entitled to deference until it is shown to involve an impossibility.'"); Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66 (1925) (Congress' "decision is entitled to deference until it is shown to involve an impossibility."); United States v. Gettysburg Elec. Ry., 1......
-
Eminent domain after Kelo v. City of New London: an argument for banning economic development takings.
...See Berman, 348 U.S. at 33-36; Midkiff, 467 U.S. at 241-43. (14.) Midkiff, 467 U.S. at 240 (quoting Old Dominion Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66 (15.) 304 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1981), overruled by County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 N.W.2d 765, 800 (Mich. 2004). (16.) Wendell E. Pritchett, T......
-
What's yours can be mine: are there any private takings after Kelo v. City of New London?
...are constitutional as construed, we follow the construction of the state court."). (71.) 256 U.S. 135 (1921). (72.) Id. at 154. (73.) 269 U.S. 55 (74.) Id. at 63. (75.) 282 U.S. 399 (1931). (76.) 269 U.S. at 66. (77.) 270 N.Y. 333 (1936). (78.) Id. at 338. (79.) Id. at 339 (citing Pocantico......