Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States
266 U.S. 149
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1924-11-17
- Topic
- general
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a claim against the United States for the value of the claimant’s interest in Pier No. 8 of the Bush Terminal Company under a lease that ran through Sep- *150 tembér 30, 1919. The claim is based upon an implied contract alleged to have arisen from a taking for war purposes, for such time as might be necessary, of described portions of the Bush Terminal docks and warehouses, including the claimant’s pier. The Court of Claims dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction upon the ground that the facts found excluded as matter of law the possibility that a contract should be implied and that therefore there could be no claim.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 128 opinions
Headnotes
- Real Property Law — Implied Contract to Compensate When the President, acting under the Act of August 29, 1916, requisitions terminal property for war purposes through a general public notice promising compensation, the taking operates in rem against all interests in the property, and a leasehold interest forming part of the res is taken, giving rise to an implied promise by the Government to pay for it. 266 U.S. at 151
- Real Property Law — Effect of Taking on Existing Interests An exercise of eminent domain that takes possession and control of property against all the world, though not taking the fee, proceeds in rem; such a taking founds a new title and extinguishes all previous rights in the property, so that all existing interests, including leaseholds, are compensated as part of the res taken. 266 U.S. at 151
- Real Property Law — Requisition Distinguished from Frustration of Contract Where the Government requisitions property and thereby makes performance of a private contract impossible, the contract itself is no part of the res taken and is not appropriated, so no implied contract to pay arises on account of it; but where the claimant's possessory interest under a lease is itself part of the res taken, that interest falls within the implied promise to pay. 266 U.S. at 151
DUCKETT CO.v. UNITED STATES,266 U.S. 149(1924)
45 S.Ct. 38
A.W. DUCKETT COMPANY, INC.v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 108.
Argued October 23, 24, 1924.
Decided November 17, 1924.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Claims rejecting a
claim for the value of a leasehold interest in property
requisitioned during the late war.
Under the Act of August 29, 1916, c. 418,39 Stat. 619, 645, giving the President authority to take possession of any system of transportation, he took possession through the Secretary of War of the Bush Terminal, in Brooklyn, New York, including Pier No. 8, the Secretary issuing a general order dated December 31, 1917, "To whom it may concern," which stated that "possession and control is hereby taken . . . of the following described parts of a system of transportation . . .; that is to say, of those portions of the Bush Terminal docks and warehouse property described" c. "Steps will be promptly taken to ascertain the fair compensation to be paid for the temporary use by the Government of the premises." Notice of this order was served on the Bush Terminal Company on or about January 3, 1918, and at about the same time the receiver of A.W. Duckett Company was notified that "the Bush Terminal has this day been requisitioned for the use of the embarkation service of the United States Army, and possession thereof has passed to the United States," and he was directed to make arrangements for vacating the premises. As the result of conferences the United States took possession of the pier at midnight, January 31, 1918.
It is unnecessary to go into the details of what was done later, as the acts that we have stated determined the relations of the parties. On the face of those actsPage 151it seems to us manifest that the United States, although not taking the fee, proceededin remas in eminent domain, and assumed to itself by paramount authority and power the possession and control of the piers named, against all the world. Ordinarily an unqualified taking in fee by eminent domain takes all interests and as it takes theresis not called upon to specify the interests that happen to exist. Whether or not for some purposes the new takers may be given the benefit of privity with the former holders, the accurate view would seem to be that such an exercise of eminent domain founds a new title and extinguishes all previous rights.Emeryv.Boston Terminal Co.,178 Mass. 172,184.Farnsworthv.Boston,126 Mass. 1,8. In such a case we no more should expect to hear it argued that leaseholds were not to be paid for than that the former fee simple should not be, on the ground that it was gone and a new fee begun. A right may be taken by simple destruction for public use.UnitedStatesv.Welch,217 U.S. 333,339. SeePeabodyv.UnitedStates,231 U.S. 530,538. Here the taking purported to be a taking of the Bush Terminal docks, c. — not of the title of the Bush Terminal Company, but of the things, to whomsoever they belonged. The notice was "to whom it may concern." The claimant was turned out like the others. We can see no ground for attributing to the United States the extraordinary intent to recognize and pay for other interests but to exclude the claimant. The order made no such distinction but promised fair compensation, seemingly to all, and the subsequent appointment of a board of appraisers contemplated payment to tenants. Any arrangement that the Government may have made later with the owner to pay to it what might be due to the tenants or some of them did not affect the claimant's rights.Page 152Omnia Commercial Co. v.United States,261 U.S. 502, which was thought to give some color to the decision below, has no bearing upon the present question. There the Government made a requisition of the entire product of a Steel Company for a year. On the assumption that the Government thereby made it impossible for the Steel Company to perform a contract to sell a large quantity of steel plate to the claimant, the decision was that nevertheless the contract was not taken. The contract was no part of therestaken and whatever might be the collateral consequences of the appropriation liability for them was not an incident of the Government's act.261 U.S. 510. Here the claimant's possession under its lease was a part of theres, and therefore was within the implied promise to pay. Whatever the effect of the taking there was a contract implied in fact by the President's order and there is no doubt concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.United Statesv.NorthAmerican Transportation Trading Co.,253 U.S. 330.Judgment reversed with directions to award proper compensationto the appellant.