Oliver v. United States

Decision Date30 April 1946
Docket NumberNo. 13174.,13174.
Citation155 F.2d 73
PartiesOLIVER et al. v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Richmond C. Coburn, of St. Louis, Mo. (Igoe, Carroll, Keefe & Coburn, of St. Louis, Mo., and Robert V. Niedner, of St. Charles, Mo., on the brief), for appellants.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo. (J. Edward Williams, Acting Head, Lands Division, of Washington, D. C., M. Walker Cooper, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., and S. Russell Vandivort, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of St. Louis, Mo., and Roger P. Marquis and Wilma C. Martin, Attys., Department of Justice, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SANBORN, THOMAS, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.

RIDDICK, Circuit Judge.

This is one of the numerous controversies growing out of the acquisition by the United States of a large tract of land near Weldon Springs in St. Charles County, Missouri, to be used as a location for a Government ordnance plant. The efforts of the War Department to purchase the land in the area selected for the ordnance plant, its acceptance of approximately 270 contracts from owners to convey their tracts to the United States for stipulated sums, and its unsuccessful attempt to repudiate all of the contracts of purchase which had not been fully executed on the conclusion that the contracts violated the statutory prohibition of a cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting in section 1 of the National Defense Act of July 2, 1940, 54 Stat. 712, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1171, are detailed in the opinion of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in United States v. Certain Land Situate in St. Charles County, Missouri, D. C., 46 F.Supp. 921; and in the opinions of this court in United States v. Muschany, 139 F.2d 661, and of the Supreme Court in Muschany v. United States, 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442.

This case involves one of the purchase contracts. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Muschany v. United States, supra, the validity of contract is established. The sole question on this appeal is whether the owners of the land are entitled to recover interest in addition to the price stipulated in the purchase contract in a proceeding instituted by the United States, following its attempted repudiation of the contract, to acquire the land by condemnation. The contract was executed by the appellant landowners on the 24th day of December, 1940, and accepted on behalf of the United States by the authorized agent of the War Department on the following 28th day of December. The contract is entitled "Option to Purchase Land." It recites that for the consideration of $1.00 paid by the United States the owners agree to sell and convey to the United States for a consideration of $70,000 the land, together with the right of immediate occupancy and use of the land for any purpose whatsoever from and after acceptance by the United States of the purchase contract until such land is conveyed to the United States by the owners and title approved by the Attorney General of the United States and the agreed purchase price paid by the United States to the owners. The landowners agree to furnish the Government a good and merchantable title to the land, free of all liens and encumbrances and further that the Government may acquire the land by condemnation in the event the title offered by the landowners is not approved by the Attorney General. The paragraph with reference to condemnation is as follows:

"If for any reason the title to the land is not approved by the Attorney General, the Government will proceed to acquire the land by condemnation proceedings instituted in the District Court of the United States in which said property is located, under a consent verdict fixing the award at the agreed valuation and in accordance with all the terms and provisions of this option and will upon filing its petition in such proceedings deposit said agreed purchase price with the clerk of said court, same to be disbursed by said officer pursuant to the decree entered in such condemnation proceedings."

After taking possession under the contract and following the conclusion that the purchase contract was void, the United States on June 6, 1941, instituted proceedings for condemnation of the land. On that date the United States filed its declaration of taking and deposited in the registry of the court $21,500 as estimated just compensation. On the same day an order was entered vesting title in the United States. The landowners filed an answer, setting up the purchase contract, insisting upon its validity, and requesting the court to fix the award for the land at the sum stipulated in the contract with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of the acceptance of the contract by the Government. Perhaps because the parties were awaiting final decision in the Muschany case as to the validity of the purchase contract there brought in question, which was identical with the contract involved in the present case so far as material to the question here, nothing more was done until after the decision of the Supreme Court in that case came down on February 5, 1945. 324 U.S. 49, 65 S.Ct. 442. On April 6, 1945, the United States filed a motion in the condemnation proceedings, reciting that the validity of the purchase contract had been sustained by the Supreme Court in the Muschany case, and asking an order of the District Court directing the United States to pay into the registry of the court the difference between the sum of $21,500 theretofore deposited as estimated compensation and the price stipulated in the purchase contract and for judgment in condemnation in accordance with the contract. To this motion the landowners filed a response, consenting to judgment in condemnation in favor of the United States for the price stipulated in the purchase contract, plus interest thereon from the date of acceptance of the contract by the Government until the deposit of the estimated compensation made with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • United States v. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND, ETC., Civ. A. No. 2515
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 31, 1952
    ...be determined. Mahowald v. United States, 8 Cir., 176 F.2d 509, 511; Scott v. United States, 6 Cir., 161 F.2d 1009, 1013; Oliver v. United States, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 73, affirmed sub nom., Albrecht v. U. S., 329 U.S. 599, 603, 67 S.Ct. 606, 91 L.Ed. 532; Bank of Edenton v. United States, 4 Ci......
  • Albrecht v. United States Linnenbringer v. Same Pitman v. Same Oliver v. Same Realty Investment Co v. Same 151 155
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1947
    ...the Government, 60 F.Supp. 741, but two decided against it. 61 F.Supp. 199.3 The Circuit Court of Ap- peals held for the Government. 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 73, 77. In a case involving somewhat similar facts, United States v. Baugh, 149 F.2d 190, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ......
  • United States v. Muschany, 13234
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 10, 1946
    ...If the question were reviewable on these appeals, it would be resolved in favor of the government under our decisions in Oliver v. United States, 155 F.2d 73, and United States v. Albrecht et al., 155 F.2d 77. The appellees contend that the question of interest is res The first question to ......
  • Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • July 18, 1962
    ...302 U.S. 329, 58 S.Ct. 248, 89 L.Ed. 294, 114 A.L.R. 807." (746) More recently the Court of Appeals for this Circuit in Oliver v. United States, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 73, and United States v. Albrecht, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 77, which latter case was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Albr......
  • 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