United States v. 25.936 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.

Decision Date09 January 1946
Docket NumberNo. 8819.,8819.
Citation153 F.2d 277
PartiesUNITED STATES v. 25.936 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER, BERGEN COUNTY, N. J., et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Wilma C. Martin, of Washington, D. C. (J. Edward Williams, Acting Head, Lands Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., Fred W. Devoe, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Attorneys, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

Milton T. Lasher, of Hackensack, N. J., for Borough of Edgewater.

Parker McCollester, of New York City (Frank H. Hall, Sidney S. Coggan, and Lord, Day & Lord, all of New York City, on the brief), for Corn Products Refining Co.

Before BIGGS, MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and KALODNER, District Judge.

BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

On May 2, 1942 the United States condemned and took in fee simple absolute, certain easements excepted, lands in the Borough of Edgewater, Bergen County, New Jersey, belonging to Corn Products Refining Company. See the Act of February 26, 1931, c. 307, 46 Stat. 1421-1422, 40 U.S.C.A. § § 258a-258e. The United States deposited1 in the court below a sum of money as "just compensation" for the lands taken as required by the Fifth Amendment. Corn Products has withdrawn from the court all the money deposited except an amount retained in the registry because of a tax claim presently asserted by the Borough of Edgewater. Corn Products petitioned the court below praying that the balance of the deposit be paid to it.

The nature of this tax claim, the pertinent statutes of New Jersey and the decisions of the New Jersey Courts are set out fully in the opinion2 of the court below and need not be repeated or discussed here. It is sufficient to state that basing his view largely upon the statute known as the New Jersey apportionment act, N.J.S. A. 54:4-56, and the decision of Mr. Justice Swayze in Jersey City v. Montville Tp., 84 N.J.L. 43, 85 A. 838, affirmed, 85 N.J.L. 372, 91 A. 1069, the learned District Judge held that though the United States acquired title in fee simple to the land it did so subject to an inchoate lien on the land for all unpaid installments of taxes for the year 1942 alleged to be due to the Borough. Accordingly, the court's decree placed a cloud on the fee simple title acquired by the United States while directing that the balance of the money be paid to Corn Products.

Specifically, the recitals of the decree state that the United States took title by virtue of the condemnation proceedings "subject to a cloud or lien inchoate for the unpaid 1942 taxes for the period from May 3, 1942, to December 31, 1942, but that both equity and justice require that there should be no deduction from the award herein to satisfy the same, and that the Borough of Edgewater is not entitled to the payment of any of the monies heretofore deposited in the Registry of the court by the United States of America on account of just compensation for the taking of said lands and premises and has no lien on any of said monies. * * *" The decree then requires that the balance of the money be paid to Corn Products "for its own use and benefit in full and complete satisfaction" of the judgment and of Corn Products claim for compensation for the lands taken. The final paragraph provides that "* * * on May 2, 1942, said lands and premises were subject to a cloud or lien inchoate for the amount of the unpaid 1942 taxes for the period from May 3, 1942 to December 31, 1942, which inchoate lien became on December 1, 1942, and still remains, a lien consummate without authority to enforce the same against the United States. * * *"

The court below was in error. The United States paid "just compensation" for the property as required by law. It is settled that when land in which various persons have separate interests or estates is taken by the United States for public use, the amount of compensation to be paid must be determined as if the property was in a single ownership and without reference to conflicting claims or liens. See Meadows v. United States, 4 Cir., 144 F.2d 751, 752, 753; United States v. 576.734 Acres of Land, 3 Cir., 143 F.2d 408, 409. The compensation paid is for the land itself and the value of the separate interests cannot exceed the worth of the whole. See 2 Lewis, Eminent Domain, 3d Ed., p. 1253; 1 Nichols, Eminent Domain, 2d Ed., pp. 707, 708. Taxes levied and assessed against real estate do not increase the land's value. United States v. 150.29 Acres of Land, Etc., in Milwaukee C. Wis., 7 cir., 135 F.2d 878, 880; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • United States v. 70.39 Acres of Land
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • July 10, 1958
    ...Meadows v. United States, 4 Cir., 1944, 144 F.2d 751, at pages 752-753, 9 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 659-661; United States v. 25.936 Acres of Land etc., 3 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 277, 279. In our case, the Dean lease covers all of Parcel 1. The lease is in litigation in the state court. We discuss ......
  • Kansas Turnpike Project, In re, 40335
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1957
    ...of Osawatomie, 148 Kan. 118, 121, 79 P.2d 857; Chicago, K. & W. R. Co., v. Sheldon, 53 Kan. 169, 35 P. 1105; United States v. 25,936 Acres of Land, etc., 3 Cir., 153 F.2d 277; Grand River Dam Authority v. Gray, 192 Okl. 547, 138 P.2d 100; Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States, 5 Cir.,......
  • Kansas Turnpike Project, In re
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1957
    ...as a unit and fix the value thereof separately. A few of the numerous authorities which support this rule are: United States v. 25,936 Acres of Land, etc., 3 Cir., 153 F.2d 277; City of St. Louis v. Rossi, 333 Mo. 1092, 64 S.W.2d 600, and the many authorities cited therein indicating that t......
  • State, By and Through State Highway Commission v. Burk
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1954
    ...173; In re Allen St. and First Ave., 256 N.Y. 236, 176 N.E. 377; Phillips v. United States, 7 Cir., 151 F.2d 645; United States v. 25.936 Acres of Land, 3 Cir., 153 F.2d 277; Ross v. Elizabethtown & S. R. Co., 20 N.J.L. 230; State by Youngquist v. Anderson, 176 Minn. 525, 223 N.W. 923; Stat......
  • 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