United States v. Arthur Lynah 30, 31 1902
Decision Date | 22 December 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 45,45 |
Citation | 188 U.S. 445,47 L.Ed. 539,23 S.Ct. 349 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err. , v. ARTHUR LYNAH et al. Argued October 30, 31, 1902. Ordered for reargument |
Court | U.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:
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:
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:
* * * * *
Upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rank v. Krug
...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.
...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.
... ... 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.
...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 ......
-
Takings, torts and turmoil: reviewing the authority requirement of the Just Compensation Clause.
...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......
-
Takings, trade secrets, and tobacco: mountain or molehill?
...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......
-
Determining Climate Responsibility: Government Liability for Hurricane Katrina?
...Breaches Litigation, 673 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2012). 12. See, e.g. , Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 (1872); United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903); United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917); United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745 (1947); United States v. Kansas City Life Ins......