United States v. Certain Lands in Jackson County, 763.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1942
• Docket Number: No. 763.,763.
• Citation: 48 F. Supp. 591
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN LANDS IN JACKSON COUNTY, MO., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

48 F. Supp. 591

UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN LANDS IN JACKSON COUNTY, MO., et al.

No. 763.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

December 4, 1942.

Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., and Charles J. Winger, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Henry L. Jost, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Kyle.

Sam Sebree and Sebree, Shook & Gisler, all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant O'Rear.

James Burke and Madden, Freeman & Madden, all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Dr. Jason Dixon.

James E. Campbell, of Kansas City, Mo., for intervenor.

Memorandum Opinion.

COLLET, District Judge.

This cause is here on re-assignment. The law of the case on many of the issues has heretofore been determined by Judge Reeves in a memorandum opinion filed herein, 48 F.Supp. 588. Explanatory of the present status of the cause it may be observed that the Government took possession of the property involved on December 23, 1940, for the purpose of constructing thereon an ordnance plant. Commissioners were appointed and reported their conclusions concerning the value of the property on September 18, 1941. The three tracts now involved, were valued by those commissioners as follows: The Kyle tract, $20,300; the Dixon tract, $4,100, and the Orear tract, $4,500. Exceptions were duly filed to that report. Those exceptions were presented to Judge Reeves. After full consideration Judge Reeves ordered another appraisal for the reasons noted in his opinion. It was further held that the parties were not entitled to a trial de novo by a jury on exceptions in this cause. The opinion states: "2. It would follow from the foregoing that, upon the evidence in the case and upon the report of the commissioners, the court either should approve the report of the commissioners or `upon good cause shown' order a new appraisement."

When the second commission reported, the values found were: For the Kyle tract $20,700; for the Dixon tract, $4,900 and for the Orear tract $4,300. Exceptions were duly filed to those awards. The cause is here for consideration of those exceptions. The question, as stated by Judge Reeves, is whether the report shall be approved or another appraisement ordered.

In determining that question the Court must treat the commissioner's report as the verdict of a common-law jury. It must be approved unless erroneous legal principles effected it, there was no proper evidence upon which it could have been based, or unless it was the result of prejudice, fraud or so patently inequitable as to shock the conscience. United States v. Certain Land Situate in Wayne County, etc., D.C., 40 F.Supp. 792.

The testimony taken by the second commission was preserved and submitted by the parties in support of their exceptions. A detailed review of that testimony will serve no good purpose. The values placed upon the properties varied greatly but the evidence as a whole furnished ample basis for the conclusion reached by the commissioners. There is nothing in the record to indicate prejudice or fraud and the result is not so patently unjust or unreasonable as to warrant rejection. The Court must not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the commissioners and set their award aside if it merely differs in amount from that which the Court as a juror or commissioner might have fixed.

There remains the question as to whether erroneous legal principles were followed by the Commission.

It was earnestly contended that the Government should have presented the appraisals made by a Government agent of other lands in the same community in connection with the acquisition of those properties for this same project. The Government declined to produce the appraisals. The...