Turnbull v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 9500.,9500. |
| Citation | 139 F.2d 126 |
| Parties | TURNBULL et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John B. Poole, of Detroit, Mich. (Palmer, Aldrich & McMath and John B. Poole, all of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellants.
Vernon L. Wilkinson, of Washington, D. C. (Norman M. Littell, of Washington, D. C., John C. Lehr, of Detroit, Mich., and Vernon L. Wilkinson, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HICKS, SIMONS, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants owned 17.3845 acres of land located in Detroit, and on June 20, 1941, they executed an "Offer of Sale" thereof to appellee, United States of America, at a price of $3,150 per acre or $54,761.17. Paragraph 6 of the offer contained the following provisions:
The offer was accepted, but instead of taking title directly from appellants, the appellee, as contemplated in paragraph 6, instituted condemnation proceedings in the District Court to acquire the land which was needed for defense housing purposes. These proceedings were accompanied by a Declaration of Taking under the provisions of the Declaration of Taking Act of February 26, 1931, Ch. 307, 46 Stat. 1421, 40 U.S.C.A. §§ 258a-258e; and appellee deposited the $54,761.17 in the Registry of the Court as estimated just compensation.
The Court entered a judgment on the declaration of taking which vested the fee title to the land in appellee and decreed that "the right to just compensation for the property so taken is vested in the persons entitled thereto; and the amount of such just compensation shall be ascertained and awarded in this proceeding and established by judgment herein pursuant to law."
On December 20, 1941, appellants sought to have the deposit paid to them forthwith as compensation for the property, the application being based upon the accepted offer of sale.
On December 29th following, appellee filed what is styled an "Amendment of Declaration of Taking" in which it averred that the estimate contained in the original declaration was erroneous and that the revised estimate of just compensation was $34,769.
The court considered appellants' motion for immediate payment in connection with appellee's amended declaration of taking and concluded that a question of law was thus presented which needed further consideration but ordered that a partial disbursement should at once be made to appellants.
Later appellee filed what is styled a "Petition for Refund" which set forth that the original estimate was a mistake, based upon appraisals which grossly overvalued the land and that the new estimate set forth in the amended declaration of taking represented the real value and the petition sought to have the difference, to wit, $19,992.70, refunded to the Treasury.
On October 22, 1942, the court allowed the amendment to the declaration of taking and adjudged that the estimated value of the land should be considered to be $34,769, as of the date of the original deposit, and directed a refund to the Treasury as prayed for in appellee's petition. The court further ordered that "the remaining issues herein shall be placed upon my docket of cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Catlin
...that a judgment on the Declaration of Taking is final and appealable. Two courts have directly held to the contrary. Turnbull v. United States, 6 Cir., 139 F.2d 126, and Dade County v. United States, decided by the Fifth Circuit April 22, 1944, 142 F.2d 230. It is doubtful if a review of th......
-
Aluminum Company of America v. Loveday, 13782.
...v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 63 S.Ct. 938, 87 L.Ed. 1185; City of Louisa v. Levi, 6 Cir., 140 F.2d 512, 513; Turnbull v. United States, 6 Cir., 139 F.2d 126; Borg-Warner Corporation v. Whitney, 6 Cir., 121 F.2d 444; Gillespie v. Schram, 6 Cir., 108 F. 2d 39; Grand Trunk Western R.......