District of Columbia v. Hess

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

District of Columbia v. Hess

35 App. D.C. 38, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5862

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 1910

DocketNo. 2078

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 App. D.C. 38 (District of Columbia v. Hess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

District of Columbia v. Hess, 35 App. D.C. 38, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5862 (D.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

A proceeding to condemn property for public use is not in the -nature of a contract between the owner and the condemning party, and until the property is actually taken and compensation is made or provided, the power of the condemning party over the matter is not exhausted. Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 196, 22 L. ed. 612; District of Columbia v. Prospect Hill Cemetery, 5 App. D. C. 497; Ross v. United States, 8 App. D. C. 32. Accordingly it is a rule of almost universal application that, in the absence of any statutory provision showing a legislative intent to the contrary, condemnation proceedings may be discontinued by the condemning party at any time before the right of the property owner has become complete. Manion v. Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co. 90 Ky. 491, 14 S. W. 532; Simpson v. Kansas City, 111 Mo. 237, 20 S. W. 38; O'Neill v. Hudson County, 41 N. J. L. 161; Nichols, Power of Em. Dom. Secs. 337, 338.

In the present case the District, for reasons satisfactory to itself, failed to take advantage of sec. 4917i of said act, amending the Code, which authorized the court, within twenty-one days after verdict, to hear and determine objections or exceptions thereto, and to set the same aside, in whole or in part, when satisfied that it is unjust or unreasonable, in which event a new jury is summoned. When, therefore, the order of dismissal was filed, the proceedings had resulted in a verdict which failed to satisfy the requirements of the law. In such a sitúa[41]*41tion, the District was, we think, fully justified in filing its notice of abandonment.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings. ' Reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

A proceeding to condemn property for public use is not in the -nature of a contract between the owner and the condemning party, and until the property is actually taken and compensation is made or provided, the power of the condemning party over the matter is not exhausted. Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 196, 22 L. ed. 612; District of Columbia v. Prospect Hill Cemetery, 5 App. D. C. 497; Ross v. United States, 8 App. D. C. 32. Accordingly it is a rule of almost universal application that, in the absence of any statutory provision showing a legislative intent to the contrary, condemnation proceedings may be discontinued by the condemning party at any time before the right of the property owner has become complete. Manion v. Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co. 90 Ky. 491, 14 S. W. 532; Simpson v. Kansas City, 111 Mo. 237, 20 S. W. 38; O'Neill v. Hudson County, 41 N. J. L. 161; Nichols, Power of Em. Dom. Secs. 337, 338.

In the present case the District, for reasons satisfactory to itself, failed to take advantage of sec. 4917i of said act, amending the Code, which authorized the court, within twenty-one days after verdict, to hear and determine objections or exceptions thereto, and to set the same aside, in whole or in part, when satisfied that it is unjust or unreasonable, in which event a new jury is summoned. When, therefore, the order of dismissal was filed, the proceedings had resulted in a verdict which failed to satisfy the requirements of the law. In such a sitúa[41]*41tion, the District was, we think, fully justified in filing its notice of abandonment.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings. ' Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 App. D.C. 38, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/district-of-columbia-v-hess-dc-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack