Home/Court of Claims/Andrew Radel Oyster Co. v. United States

Andrew Radel Oyster Co. v. United States

78 Ct. Cl. 816, 1934 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 365, 1934 WL 2014
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedFebruary 6, 1934
DocketNo. J-26
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 78 Ct. Cl. 816 (Andrew Radel Oyster Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Andrew Radel Oyster Co. v. United States, 78 Ct. Cl. 816, 1934 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 365, 1934 WL 2014 (cc 1934).

Opinions

Whaley, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes to this court under an act of Congress approved June 21,1926, entitled “An act for the relief of the Andrew Eadel Oyster Company ” and provides:

“ Be it enacted by the Senate cmd House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States Court of Claims be, and it is hereby, authorized and directed to hear and determine the claim of the Andrew Eadel Oyster Company for compensation for alleged damage sustained by the said Andrew Eadel Oyster Company by reason of the destruction of certain oyster beds located in Earitan Bay, about two miles southwesterly of Old Orchard Light, by a dredge of the United States War Department, on June 19,1923.”

When this bill was before the committees of the Congress full consideration was given to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co., 229 U.S. 82, and other decisions of the Supreme Court establishing the dominant title of the Government to the subsoil in all navigable waters for the purpose of regulating and [824]*824improving navigation and holding that no compensation can be legally recovered for any injury to property on the subsoil of a navigable stream or bay. See Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269.

The committees also were aware of the passage of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 1038, which contained, among other items, a provision to dredge a channel in New York Harbor 30 feet deep and 200 feet wide from a point northwest off Sandy Hook to a point off Seguine Point. There was also brought to the attention of the committees the fact that spar buoys with green tops had been placed along the proposed surveyed route before actual work was begun. Notwithstanding all of these facts being known and the legal immunity of the Government fully understood, nevertheless the committees came to the conclusion that the failure on the part of the engineer officer to give actual notice was an act of negligence on the part of the Government for which the Congress assumed liability and intended to grant relief. Under the general jurisdiction of this court, actions sounding in tort are not cognizable, but the Congress can confer upon this court by an act the right to hear and determine any issue. It is quite apparent from the congressional reports that it was the plain intention of both Houses of Congress to grant to the plaintiff a cause of action in tort against the Government, and to refer the issues to this court to be tried like any other suit within the general jurisdiction of this court. The act specifically presents the main fact around which the question revolves — did the War Department dredge Raritan go over the oyster beds of the plaintiff on June 19, 1923 — and if the court finds that fact in the affirmative, then the compensation for the damages, if any, is also to be found. The intention of the Congress was to create a liability where heretofore there was no liability in this particular case. The act would be meaningless and an absurdity were any other construction to be placed upon it. The law and all but two facts were well known to the Congress and the reference was made to this court to relieve [825]*825Congress of the arduous duty of acting in a judicial manner in the ascertainment of these facts. The plaintiff was given a judicial forum in which to establish its case and the court the jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues. See Butler Lumber Co., 73 C.Cls. 270, and cases cited. See Report No. 332, Senate Committee on Claims, March 11, 1926, 69th Cong., 1st session; Congressional Record, Senate, March 30, 1926, p. 6582, vol. 67, part 6, 69th Congress, 1st session; Congressional Record, June 11, 1926, page 11189, House of Representatives, vol. 67, part 10, 69th Congress, 1st session.

The plaintiff is a corporation under the laws of the State of New York and is engaged in the business of raising for market and selling oysters. It was the sublessee from the State of New York of two lots, known as lots 1034 and 1038, lying in Raritan Bay,, about two miles southwesterly of Old Orchard Light and extending and covering 168.3 acres and 135.1 acres, respectively, or a combined acreage of 303.4. These leases had been issued through the Conservation Commission of the State of New York to Clarence DeHart and assigned by him to the plaintiff, and granted the right to the plaintiff to the State of New York’s title to the submerged area in that portion of Raritan Bay. Rari-tan Bay is navigable and the title of the State of New York to the bed of the bay is subservient to the paramount or dominant title of the United States over all navigable waters. The boundaries of the plaintiff’s oyster lots were marked by spar buoys plainly visible to the agents of the defendant when the proposed channel was marked by spar buoys with green tops. Before these Government buoys were placed, the plaintiff on September 27, 1922, brought from other, areas 37,000 bushels of seed oysters and planted them on the submerged soil of the bay on the area covered by its leased lot no. 1034. Beginning on May 14, 1923, and ending June 2, 1923, the plaintiff brought from other areas 18,600 bushels of seed oysters and planted them in the subsoil area covered by its leased lot 1038.

[826]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Petrovich v. United States
421 F.2d 1364 (Court of Claims, 1970)
Petrovich v. United States
421 F.2d 1364 (Third Circuit, 1970)
Dixon v. United States
103 Ct. Cl. 160 (Court of Claims, 1945)
Ross v. United States
102 Ct. Cl. 151 (Court of Claims, 1944)
Indians of California ex rel. U. S. Webb v. United States
98 Ct. Cl. 583 (Court of Claims, 1942)
Schroeder Besse Oyster Co. v. United States
95 Ct. Cl. 729 (Court of Claims, 1942)
F. Mansfield & Sons Co. v. United States
94 Ct. Cl. 397 (Court of Claims, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 Ct. Cl. 816, 1934 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 365, 1934 WL 2014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-radel-oyster-co-v-united-states-cc-1934.