United States v. Engeman
| Decision Date | 07 July 1891 |
| Citation | 46 F. 898 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ENGEMAN et al. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Jesse Johnson, U.S. Dist. Atty.
Thomas E. Pearsall. (R. D. Benedict, of counsel,) for defendants.
The report of the commissioners appointed to ascertain the compensation to be made to the above-named owners for property at Plum island, to be taken for the use of the United States, having been filed, the district attorney now moves for its confirmation. No opposition being made, an order will be entered confirming the report. The owners of the property at the same time apply for the insertion in the order of confirmation of a provision for the payment of interest from the date of the confirmation of the report. The district attorney opposes the allowance of interest. In my opinion, however, interest should be allowed from the date of the confirmation of the report. The commissioners have ascertained the present value of the land to be taken. and the owners of the land should have interest on the present value of the land from the time when the right of the United States to take the same attaches to the time when payment for the land is made. The owners of the property likewise apply for costs under the provision in the statute of the state of New York, in accordance with which this proceeding is, by the statute of the United States, required to be prosecuted. The district attorney objects upon the ground that, in proceedings in the courts of the United States, only the costs provided by the statute of the United States can be allowed. My opinion, however, is that the rule applied in ordinary suits does not apply to a proceeding like this which is required by the statute 'to be prosecuted in accordance with the laws relating to condemnation of property of the states () wherein the property may be situated.' 26 St.at Large, p.. 316. This statute requires the present proceeding to be in accord with the general condemnation act of the state of New York, passed in 1890. That act provides as follows:
'If the compensation awarded shall exceed the amount of the offer, with interest from the time it was made, or, if no offer was made, the court shall in the final order, direct that the defendant recover of the plaintiff the costs of the proceeding, at the same rate as is allowed, of course, to the defendants when he is the prevailing party in an action in the supreme court, including the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. The City St. Louis
...v. Borough, etc., 136 Pa. St. 294. (2) Interest runs from the time when the right to take is complete in the condemning party. United States v. Engeman, 46 F. 898; Colony v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1; Edwards v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535. Under the authority of Plum v. Kansas City, supra, it seems cl......
-
US v. 251.81 Acres of Land in Meade County, Ky., 337.
...authorities relied upon by the landowner, the only one which seems to have given the question any consideration is United States v. Engeman, D.C.N.Y., 46 F. 898. That ruling seems to have been long since departed from by both subsequent District Court and Circuit Court rulings in the same C......