United States v. Kincaid, 5928.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 5928.,5928. |
| Citation | 49 F.2d 768 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES et al. v. KINCAID. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., and J. O. Modisette, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., and Arthur B. Hammond, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., of New Orleans, La. (Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., and J. O. Modisette, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., and G. A. Iverson, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellants.
Thomas J. Freeman, Wm. C. Dufour, and John St. Paul, Jr., all of New Orleans, La., Harry H. Russell, of Monroe, La., and W. G. Streett and O. C. Burnside, both of Lake Village, Ark., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a final decree rendered in a suit brought by the appellee, the owner of a tract of improved land, located in the Boeuf River Basin, in Louisiana, which, by the execution of the plan for the control of flood waters of the Mississippi river adopted pursuant to provisions of the Flood Control Act, approved May 15, 1928 (33 USCA § 702a et seq.), would be subject to be flooded by a greater volume of water than ever before. That decree awarded in favor of the appellee an injunction restraining the Secretary of War, the Chief of Engineers, the Mississippi River Commission, the District Engineer, and their agents, servants, etc., from proceeding with the construction authorized by, or carrying out the plan adopted by or pursuant to, that act, §§ 1, 4 (33 USCA §§ 702a, 702d), in the Boeuf River Basin floodway, including all levee work or levee construction and the awarding or letting of contracts for the same, unless and until the said property of the appellee shall be acquired by the United States government, or the flowage rights over the same shall be acquired by purchase or condemnation for such purpose.
For reasons stated in opinions rendered by the District Judge Kincaid v. United States, 35 F.(2d) 235; Id. 37 F.(2d) 602, we conclude that appellee was entitled to the relief granted by that decree. The record showing no reversible error, that decree is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kane County v. Elmhurst Nat. Bank
...& A.R. Co., 3 F.Cas. No. 1,617 (C.C.N.J.1830); Kincaid v. United States, 35 F.2d 235, later trial 37 F.2d 602 (W.D.La.1929), aff'd 49 F.2d 768 (5th Cir.1931), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95, 76 L.Ed. 637, 52 S.Ct. 267 (1932)) and courts in Alabama (Dancy v. A......
-
Gerlach Livestock Co. v. United States
...remedy at law, it enjoined the defendant from proceeding with the construction of the floodway. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed (49 F.2d 768). The Supreme Court granted certiorari. In its opinion reported sub-nom. Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95, on pages 103 and 104, 52 S.Ct. 267, on ......
-
Board of Com'rs for Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. v. St. Landry Parish School Bd.
...produce disastrous major floods of other lands. See Kincaid v. United States, D.C.W.D.La., 35 F.2d 235; D.C., 37 F.2d 602; affirmed, 5 Cir., 49 F.2d 768; reversed on other grounds, 285 U.S. 95, 52 S.Ct. 267, 76 L.Ed. 637. We do not think that the State constitutional provision limiting the ......
-
Sponenbarger v. United States
...v. U. S., 35 F.2d 235, and 37 F.2d 602). The latter decree was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. United States v. Kincaid, 49 F.2d 768. The Supreme Court, in reversing the case, had no occasion to determine, nor did it determine, any of the controverted issues of fact ......