United States v. Stubbs, 1809.
Decision Date | 07 October 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 1809.,1809. |
Citation | 35 F.2d 357 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. STUBBS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., J. O. Modisette, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., of Jennings, La., and John C. Dyott, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo.
Harry Russell and F. P. Stubbs, both of Monroe, La., Wm. C. Dufour, John St. Paul, Jr., and T. J. Freeman, all of New Orleans, La., C. J. Ellis, of Rayville, La., and Street & Burnside, of Lake Village, Ark., for defendants.
Pursuant to provisions of the Act of May 15, 1928, commonly known as the Flood Control Bill (33 USCA §§ 702a-702m, 704) the government seeks in this case to condemn 114.26 acres of land for the building of a portion of what is called the Monroe Circle Levee. It is also a part of the general plan for control of flood waters of the Mississippi river. The act in question authorizes the appropriation of $325,000,000 for the entire work, but makes available for present expenditures only $30,000,000. Primarily, the purpose of this suit is to determine the procedure and requirements necessary to permit the taking possession of the property desired, and the larger issue of whether actual work upon the guide levees of the general project shall commence or be restrained remains to be heard in the case of Kincaid v. the Secretary of War and Others, now pending in this court. In other words, the plaintiff seeks an interpretation of section 4 of the Act of May 15 (33 USCA § 702d) in conjunction with the provisions of sections 594 and 595 of title 33 of the U. S. Code (33 USCA), as to whether the appropriation of $30,000,000 for all purposes at the present time, coupled with the letter of the Secretary of War to the Attorney General that funds are available to pay for the particular property in this instance, is sufficient to meet the requirements of the law and to authorize the taking of possession; or whether the court may and should, in its discretion, require in each case a deposit in the registry of the court or an official depository of funds to cover the maximum value that may be found for the property.
Section 4 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (33 USCA § 702d), reads in part as follows:
Section 594 of title 33 of the U. S. Code (33 USCA), which is the one pertinent to the issue now to be decided, provides:
It will be noted that section 594 of the Code requires: "That certain and adequate provision shall have been made for the payment of just compensation to the party or parties entitled thereto, either by previous appropriation by the United States or by the deposit of moneys or other form of security in such amount and form as shall be approved by the court in which such proceedings shall be instituted." It also provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial- United States v. Mitchell
- United States v. Hanrahan
-
Harley v. Oliver
......v. Thomas Edward OLIVER et al., Defendants. No. FS-75-22-C. United States District Court, W. D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division. May 20, ......
- United States v. Love