United States v. Tennant
| Decision Date | 25 March 1899 |
| Citation | 93 F. 613 |
| Court | United States District Court, District of Washington, Northern Division |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. TENNANT et al. |
Wilson R. Gay, U.S. Atty.
Ellis De Bruler and Scott & McNeny, for defendants.
This is a proceeding for the condemnation of land necessary as a site for fortifications to protect the government dry dock at Port Orchard. A special jury was impaneled, and the question as to the compensation to be rendered by the government to each separate owner of the several tracts of land required was fixed by a separate verdict, after hearing the testimony of witnesses called by the government and by the owners respectively. In favor of Mrs. Theresa Wood, the owner of several tracts of land, containing in the aggregate about 118 acres, the jury rendered a verdict for the sum of $4,600, and the United States attorney has moved to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive. Considering the testimony as to the character and value of Mrs. Wood's land, and the comparative value of other land in the vicinity, I consider that the sum of $4,600 is largely in excess of the present market value of the land, and is more than she is justly entitled to receive from the government as damages for the taking of her property, and, if I believed that the law authorized the granting of a new trial and the resubmission of the question of compensation to another jury, I would not hesitate to grant the motion of the United States attorney. But the laws of the United States provide that proceedings for the condemnation of land required for fortifications shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice in condemnation proceedings in the courts of the state in which the land is situated, prescribed by the laws of the state. 1 Supp.Rev.St.U.S. (2d Ed.)pp. 601, 780. Therefore, the form of procedure prescribed by the laws of this state in cases of appropriation of property by the state furnishes a guide which the court must follow, as near as may be, in the proceedings for acquiring titles from private owners to real estate required by the United States government, and fixing the compensation to be paid therefor. See Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St Wash. tit. 31, c. 5, Sec. 5616 et seq. This chapter of the Code prescribes a special proceeding, and the general rules of procedure governing the trial of civil actions is not applicable in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grays Harbor Boom Co. v. Lownsdale
......To sustain this contention, they cite the. opinion of Judge Hanford in the case of United States v. Freeman (D. C.) 113 F. 370, wherein he said upon the. authority of Railway ...158, that: 'I adhere to the ruling made by this. court in the case of U.S. v. Tennant (D. C.) 93 F. 613, to the effect that in condemnation cases in this state. the law does ......
-
Murhard Estate Co. v. Portland & Seattle Ry. Co.
...163 F. 194 MURHARD ESTATE CO. v. PORTLAND & SEATTLE RY. CO. No. 1,420.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.July 6, 1908 [163 F. 195] . . Milton. W. Smith, ... . . We are. cited to the case of United States v. Tennant et al. (D.C.) 93 F. 613, wherein the District Court of the. Northern Division of Washington had ......
-
United States v. Certain Parcels of Land
...jury in the amount of the award. This contention is based upon two decisions rendered in this District by Judge Hanford. United States v. Tennant, D.C.1899, 93 F. 613; United States v. Freeman, D.C.1902, 113 F. 370. In those two decisions, Judge Hanford reasoned as follows: The Federal Stat......
-
United States v. Freeman
...... the jury justifies a suspicion that the land condemned was. appraised lower than it would have been if the jury had not. been permitted to see other land contiguous thereto. I adhere. to the ruling made by this court in the case of U.S. v. Tennant (D.D.) 93 F. 613, to the effect that in. condemnation cases in this state the law does not authorize. the court of original jurisdiction to set aside the verdict. of a jury on the ground that the appraisement was erroneous. or unfair. Upon a re-examination of the question I am. confirmed in ......