United States v. 2,974.49 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., 8618.

Decision Date17 September 1962
Docket NumberNo. 8618.,8618.
Citation308 F.2d 641
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. 2,974.49 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN CLARENDON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, and South Carolina Public Service Authority, et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Edmund B. Clark, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Ramsey Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty., Thomas P. Simpson, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept. of Justice, on the brief), for appellant.

Walton J. McLeod, Jr., Waterboro, S. C. (W. D. Simpson, Moncks Corner, S. C., and Rogers & Riggs, Manning, S. C., on brief), for appellees.

Before SOPER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and LARKINS, District Judge.

LARKINS, District Judge.

On March 29, 1956 the South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) granted to the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as United States) a three-month option to purchase for the price of $105,000. approximately 3,000 acres of land in Clarendon County, South Carolina, for and on behalf of the Santee National Wildlife Refuge Project. No time limit for performance of the contract, if the option were accepted, was set forth in the option contract. On October 26, 1956 the option was extended to January 29, 1957 and the United States exercised the option in writing on December 21, 1956.

No further correspondence ensued between the parties until January 20, 1958 when the Authority advised the United States that it considered the delay of more than one year in making payment to be unreasonable and declared the option to be terminated. The United States replied on January 28, 1958 that it would complete acquisition. On May 6, 1958 the Authority stated that it definitely would not convey the property pursuant to the option contract.

On November 15, 1958 the United States filed a complaint in condemnation and a Declaration of Taking and deposited with the court, the sum of $105,000. as estimated compensation. An order for immediate possession was entered on February 13, 1959. In the complaint reference was made to the option agreement wherein the parties had agreed upon a purchase price of $105,000.

The Authority's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and vacate the Declaration of Taking was denied.

The United States then moved for judgment on the pleadings and the district court denied the motion while deciding that a question of fact to be determined by a jury existed as to whether the United States had complied with its obligations under the option contract.

In October 1961, trial was held upon the sole issue of whether the United States had complied with the terms of the option contract to perform its obligations within a reasonable time. The jury returned as its verdict, that the delay of the United States in meeting its obligations under the option contract was unreasonable. The district court thereupon entered an order dismissing the complaint, vacating the Declaration of Taking and vacating the order for immediate possession with the comment that the jury verdict rendered the option contract invalid, and inasmuch as the option contract was inseparably involved in the pleadings and issues in this action, the action could not continue without defendant suffering grave prejudice.

The district court was not in error in submitting to the jury the issue of whether the United States' delay in fulfilling its obligations under the option contract was reasonable. The complaint specifically set forth the option contract as the basis of the price ($105,000.) alleged to be just compensation for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • United States v. 6.584 Acres of Land
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 12 Abril 2021
    ...review" and requiring an "ultra vires" standard of review); United States v. 2,974.49 Acres of Land, more or less, in Clarendon Cnty. , 308 F.2d 641, 643 (4th Cir. 1962) (emphasis added) ("Once it had determined that the condemnation was authorized by statute and that the statutory requirem......
  • United States v. Smith, 22320.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 11 Abril 1966
    ...from completed conveyances. United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, etc., 3 Cir. 1944, 144 F.2d 626; United States v. 2,974.49 Acres of Land, etc., 4 Cir. 1962, 308 F.2d 641; and Virgin Islands Housing Auth. v. 15.5521 U. S. Acres of Land, D.C.V.I. 1964, 230 F.Supp. 845, which are relied ......
  • Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 28 Diciembre 1962
    ... ... January 8, 1954, purchased for $72,606.87 a parcel of land in the City of Industry, California, for the purpose of ... ...
  • Concord Village, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 2778-70.
    • United States
    • U.S. Tax Court
    • 28 Octubre 1975
    ...(1957), affd. 254 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1958). Although accounting practices are not determinative, United Grocers, Ltd. v. United States, 308 F.2d at 641, the name by which parties choose to characterize an account is important. Terminal Realty Corp., 32 B.T.A. 623, 632 (1935); cf. Clay Sewer ......
  • 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