United States v. Arthur Lynah 30, 31 1902

Decision Date22 December 1902
Docket NumberNo. 45,45
Citation188 U.S. 445,47 L.Ed. 539,23 S.Ct. 349
PartiesUNITED STATES, Plff. in Err. , v. ARTHUR LYNAH et al. Argued October 30, 31, 1902. Ordered for reargument
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On February 4, 1897, defendants in error commenced their action in the circuit court of the United States for the district of South Carolina to recover of the United States the sum of $10,000 as compensation for certain real estate (being a part of a plantation known as Verzenobre) taken and appropriated by the defendant.

The petition alleged in the 1st paragraph the citizenship and residence of the petitioners; in the 2d, that they had a claim against the United States under an implied contract for compensation for the value of property taken by the United States for public use; 3d, that they were the owners as tenants in common of the plantation; and in the 4th and 7th paragraphs:

'Fourth. That for several years continuously, and now continuously, the said government of the United States of America in the exercise of its power of eminent domain under the Constitution of the United States and by authority of the acts of Congress, duly empowering its officers and agents thereto, in that case made and provided, did erect, build, and maintain, and continuously since have been erecting, building and maintaining, and are now building, erecting, and maintaining in and across the said Savannah river, in the bed of the said Savannah river, certain dams, training walls, and other obstructions, obstructing and hindering the natural flow of the said Savannah river through, in, and along the natural bed thereof and raising the said Savannah river feet at the point of and above the said obstructions and dams in the bed of the said Savannah river, and causing the said waters of the Savannah river aforesaid to be kept back and to flow back and to be raised and elevated above the natural height of the Savannah river along its natural bed at the points of the said dams, training walls, and obstructions, and at points above the said dams, training walls, and obstructions in said river.'

'Seventh. And your petitioners further show that the said acts of the government of the United States, as aforesaid, have been done and are being done lawfully by the officers and agents of the United States under the authority of the United States in the exercise of its powers of eminent domain and regulation of commerce under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Congress for the public purpose of the improvement of the harbor of Savannah and deepening the waters of the Savannah river at the port of Savannah, a port of entry of the United States and seaport of the United States of America, situated within the state of Georgia, on the Savannah river, and with the purpose of deepening and enlarging the navigable channel and highway for commerce of the said Savannah river for the public use, purpose, and benefit of interstate and foreign and international trade and commerce, and for other public purposes, uses, and benefits.'

The remaining paragraphs set forth the effect of the placing by the government of the dams, restraining walls, and other obstructions in the river, together with the value of the property appropriated by the overflow. The answer of the government averred:

'First. That this defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the 1st and 3d paragraphs of the said petition and complaint.

'Second. That this defendant denies all of the allegations contained in the 2d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th paragraphs of the said petition and complaint except so much of the 4th paragraph as alleges that the said United States heretofore erected certain dams in the Savannah river pursuant to power vested in it by law, and except so much of the 7th paragraph as alleges that the said dams heretofore erected by the United States were lawfully erected by its officers and agents.'

For a further defense the statute of limitations was pleaded. The case came on for trial before the court without a jury, which made findings of fact, and from them deduced conclusions of law and entered a judgment against the defendant for the sum of $10,000. The findings were to the effect that the plaintiffs were the owners of the plantation, deriving title by proper mesne conveyances from 'a grant by the lord's proprietors of South Carolina,' made in 1736. Other findings pertinent to the questions which must be considered in deciding this case were as follows:

'IV. A certain parcel of these plantations, measuring about 420 acres, had been reclaimed by drainage, and had been in actual continued use for seventy years and upwards as a rice plantation, used solely for this purpose. This rice plantation was dependent for its irrigation upon the waters of the Savannah river and its ditches, drains, and canals, through and by which the waters of the river were flowed in and upon the lands, and were then drained therefrom, were adapted to the natural level of the said Savannah river, and dependent for their proper drainage and cultivation upon the maintenance of the natural flow of the said river in, through, and over its natural channel along its natural bed to the waters of the ocean.

'V. This portion of the plantation fronting on the river and dedicated to the culture of rice, extended almost up to, if not quite to, law-water mark, and a large part of it was between mean high-water and low-water mark, protected from the river by an embankment. Through this embankment trunks or water ways were constructed, with flood gates therein. The outer opening of the trunk was about a foot or a little less above the mean low-water mark of the river, in which the tide ebbs and flows. When it is desired to flow the lands, the flood gates are opened and the water comes in. When it is desired to draw off this water and to effect the drainage of the lands, the flood gates are opened at low water and the water escapes. It is essential that the outlets of the trunks or water ways should always be above the mean low-water mark.

* * * * *

'VII. For several years last past and at the present time the government of the United States, under its proper officers, authorized thereto by the act of Congress, have been engaged in the improvement of the navigation of the Savannah river, a navigable water of the United States, this improvement being carried on by virtue of the provisions of § 8, art. I. of the Constitution, giving to the Congress the power to regulate commerce.

'VIII. In thus improving navigation of this navigable water the United States has built and maintained, and is now building and maintaining, in and across the Savannah river, in the bed thereof, certain dams, training walls, and other obstructions, obstructing the natural flow of said river in and along its natural bed, and so raising the level of the said river above said obstructions, and causing its waters to be kept back and to flow back and to be elevated above its natural height in its natural bed.

'IX. This rice plantation Verzenobre is above these obstructions. The direct effect thereof is to raise the level of the Savannah river at this plantation, and to keep the point of mean low water above its natural point, so that the outlet of the trunks and water ways above spoken of in the bank of said plantation, instead of being above this point of low-water mark, is now below this point. Another direct result was that by seepage and percolation the water rose in the plantation until the water level in the land gradually rose to the height of the increased water level in the river, and the superinduced addition of water in the plantation was about 18 inches thereby. By reason of this it gradually became difficult, and has now become impossible, to let off the water on this plantation or to drain the same, so that these acres dedicated to the culture of rice have become boggy, unfit for cultivation, and impossible to be cultivated in rice.

'X. By the raising of the level of the Savannah river by these dams and obstructions, the water thereof has been backed up against the embankment on the river and has been caused to flow back upon and in this plantation above the obstruction, and has actually invaded said plantation, directly raising the water in said plantation about 18 inches, which it is impossible toremove from said plantation. This flooding is the permanent condition now, and the rice plantation is thereby practically destroyed for the purpose of rice culture or any other known agriculture, and is an irreclaimable bog and has no value.

'XI. By reason of this superinduced addition of water actually invading the said rice plantation, and its destruction thereby for all purposes of agriculture, plaintiffs have been compelled to abandon the cultivation of said rice plantation and have been forced to pursue their calling of planting rice on other plantations below the dams. The direct result to plaintiffs is an actual and practical ouster of possession from this riceplantation, cultivated by themselves and family for many years.

'XII. Beyond the backing up of the water on and in the plantation by reason of the dams and obstruction, and the invasion of these lands by this superinduced addition of water at and in the plantation as above described, rendered necessary by the execution of the government's plans, the United States is not in actual possession of these lands.

'XIII. Up to this time no other use has been discovered for these lands than for rice culture, and the direct results above stated have totally destroyed the market value of the lands. They now have no value.

'XIV. The value of these rice lands before the obstructions aforesaid were put into the river was about $30 per acre; between $25 and $30 per acre. The value of the rice plantation, 420 acres, thus destroyed, is $10,000.'

Upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
282 cases
  • Rank v. Krug
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 13 April 1950
    ...where the powers were exercised under the Commerce Clause, are: Kohl v. U. S., 1875, 91 U.S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449; U. S. v. Lynah, 1903, 188 U.S. 445, 23 S.Ct. 349, 47 L.Ed. 539; Pumpelly v. Green Bay, etc. Co., 1872, 13 Wall. 166, 20 L.Ed. 557; Williams v. U. S., C.C. 1903, 104 F. 50 affirme......
  • Griffin v. Jtsi, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • 6 November 2008
    ...argue that he is merely acting in place of the government. See Yearsley, 309 U.S. at 22, 60 S.Ct. 413 (quoting U.S. v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445, 465, 23 S.Ct. 349, 47 L.Ed. 539 (1903)) (finding that a construction contractor building dikes based on government specifications is an agent of the go......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 15 November 1906
    ... ... with railroads in other states, and the state which created ... the corporation ... 98, 12 ... L.R.A. 436, 31 Am.St.Rep. 477, the Supreme Court of that ... used on all the railroads in the United ... States, and that no company could do any ... United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445, 23 S.Ct. 379, ... 47 L.Ed. 539, ... ...
  • Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 1 May 1930
    ...embankment upon the river and interfering with the drainage of their plantation. This was held (pages 465, 471, [of 188 U.S., 23 S.Ct. 349, 47 L.Ed. 539]) to be a taking private property, requiring compensation under the 5th Amendment, notwithstanding the work was done by the government in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Takings Law, Lucas, and the Growth Management Act
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 16-03, March 1993
    • Invalid date
    ...subsequently applied Pumpelly in several cases involving physical encroachment upon private property. See, e.g., United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903) (overflow of rice plantation was a taking); cf. Bedford v. United States, 192 U.S. 217 (1904) (compensation denied where government ca......
  • Takings, torts and turmoil: reviewing the authority requirement of the Just Compensation Clause.
    • United States
    • UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy Vol. 19 No. 2, December 2001
    • 22 December 2001
    ...v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 197 (1991), aff'd, 792 F.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision). (47.) United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445, 479 (1903) (Brown, J., (48.) Hughes v. United States, 230 U.S. 24, 35 (1913). (49.) Id. at 35. (50.) Adams v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 13......
  • Derivative Immunity: the Impact of Campbell-ewald Co. v. Gomez
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 50, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...one's authority under Yearsley. 198. See Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Const. Co., 309 U.S. 18, 22 (1940) (citing United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903) ("The action of the agent is 'the act of the government.'"); Conner v. Quality Coach, Inc., 750 A.2d 823, 830 (Pa. 2000) ("Apparently by virt......
  • Takings, trade secrets, and tobacco: mountain or molehill?
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 53 No. 2, November - November 2000
    • 1 November 2000
    ...e.g., United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745, 750-51 (1947); Bothwell v. United States, 254 U.S. 231 (1920); United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445, 468-70 (1903); see also Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546, 557 (1914) (finding a "taking" where smoke and soot from railway tu......
  • 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