Stephenson Brick Co. v. United States, 9302.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9302.,9302. |
| Citation | 110 F.2d 360 |
| Parties | STEPHENSON BRICK CO. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. and for Use of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY. UNITED STATES ex rel. and for Use of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY v. STEPHENSON BRICK CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. T. Stokely, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellant and cross-appellee Stephenson Brick Co.
William C. Fitts, Jr., General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, of Knoxville, Tenn., and H. James Hitching, Asst. General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellee and cross-appellant.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
This is a proceeding by the United States to condemn land of Stephenson Brick Company lying along the south bank of the Tennessee River at Decatur, Alabama, under the Act of May 18, 1933, Sect. 25, 48 Stat. 70, 16 U.S.C.A. § 831x. Commissioners took evidence and fixed a sum to be paid for the property taken. Their finding was appealed to three district judges who fixed a sum of $97,500. This judgment has been appealed by both parties to this court under Section 25 of the Act. Upon considering the record and the argument we find that the land taken is a part of a larger tract which at the time of the taking was used as a unit for a brick manufacturing plant and that the severance of the part taken did destroy the usefulness and value of the plant, so that what remained had the value only of disorganized land and buildings, and the machinery comprised in the plant had only the value of such second-hand property. The owner is entitled to be compensated not only for the separate value of the land taken, but also for the loss in value of the remainder of the tract in the use that was made of it at the time of the taking. There being no established market price, the fair value at the date of the taking of the whole plant, excluding personal property, ought to be ascertained, looking upon it as a plant organized for a business shown to be generally successful and having a good prospect; and also the fair value for sale of what was left afterward. The difference in the values is the just compensation to be paid. That the plant was making money may be considered in fixing its value for sale, but the business is not to be valued as such, nor is any loss of future profits to be compensated. What the plant originally cost, what Stephenson Brick Company paid for it at judicial sale, it not having been a sheriff's sale, and what it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Honolulu Plantation Co.
...372, 45 S.Ct. 115, 69 L.Ed. 328; Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341, 354-355, 24 S.Ct. 114, 48 L.Ed. 211. 17 Stephenson Brick Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 110 F.2d 360. The local rule in Hawaii as to valuation of land and improvements separately in certain situations has no effect upon t......
-
United States v. Smith, 22320.
...376, 63 S.Ct. 276, 87 L.Ed. 336; International Paper Company v. United States, 5 Cir. 1955, 227 F.2d 201, 205; Stephenson Brick Co. v. United States, 5 Cir. 1940, 110 F.2d 360. The burden of proving both elements of damage was upon the Hendersons as owners of the land taken. United States e......
-
Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., Application of
...would be enjoyed by a sole owner of the business' (1 Bonbright, Valuation of Property, 247 [1st Ed. 1937]).5 Stephenson Brick Co. v. United States, 110 F.2d 360 (C.C.A., 5th); Borough of Hanover v. Hanover Sewer Co., 251 Pa. 95, 96 A. 132; Matter of Board of Water Supply of City of New York......
-
United States v. 26.81 Acres of Land, More or Less
...affect market value.' McCandless v. United States, 298 U.S. 342, 345, 56 S.Ct. 764, 765, 80 L.Ed. 1205. See also Stephenson Brick Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 110 F.2d 360, 361; Grand River Dam Authority v. Thompson, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 242, 244, 245; 18 Am.Jur., Eminent Domain, Sec. The cou......