Home/Fourth Circuit/United States v. 2979.72 Acres of Land, More or Less, in the County of Halifax, Virginia, Olive Vaughan Williams, and Unknown Owners

United States v. 2979.72 Acres of Land, More or Less, in the County of Halifax, Virginia, Olive Vaughan Williams, and Unknown Owners

237 F.2d 165, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2867
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 11, 1956
Docket6839
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 237 F.2d 165 (United States v. 2979.72 Acres of Land, More or Less, in the County of Halifax, Virginia, Olive Vaughan Williams, and Unknown Owners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. 2979.72 Acres of Land, More or Less, in the County of Halifax, Virginia, Olive Vaughan Williams, and Unknown Owners, 237 F.2d 165, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2867 (4th Cir. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing insists that since the flowage easement of the power company had no value to it except for water power purposes, and since value for such purposes cannot be considered, it is not entitled to any compensation whatever for the destruction of its easement as a result of the government’s taking. The answer is that the taking by the government is a proceeding in rem. It must pay as compensation for the taking the amount by which the value of the land is decreased as a result of the taking of the flowage easement, and the owner whose interest is damaged as a result of the taking of that easement is entitled to the compensation. There can be no question but that the power company here had acquired the interest in the land, i. e. the flowage rights, which the government is taking by condemnation, and that compensation for such taking should be made to the power company as the owner of that interest. And there can be no question, furthermore, but that the compensation to be paid is, not the value of that interest to the power company, but the difference in the value of the land with and without the flowage easement, not considering its value for water power purposes. The ease is not one of paying compensation to the owner of the land for the imposition of an additional or second easement, but of allocating compensation between the owner of the fee and the owner of a flowage easement which is destroyed as a result of the taking.

Rehearing denied.

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

Related

United States v. Certain Land in City of Fort Worth
232 F. Supp. 611 (N.D. Texas, 1964)
United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.
365 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court, 1961)
Augusta Power Company, Appellant-Appellee v. United States of America, Appellee-Appellant. United States of America, Appellee-Appellant v. Augusta Power Company, Appellant-Appellee
278 F.2d 1 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
Augusta Power Co. v. United States
278 F.2d 1 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
United States v. 2979.72 Acres of Land, More or Less, in the County of Halifax, Virginia, Olivevaughan Williams, and Unknown Owners (Tract Ff-3100e)
270 F.2d 707 (Fourth Circuit, 1959)
United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Twin City Power Company, and Cross-Appellant. (Tract No. C-215). United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Twin City Power Company, and Cross-Appellant. (Tracts Nos. F-500 and H-700). United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Twin City Power Company, and Cross-Appellant. (Tracts Nos. F-541 (Part) and H-732)
248 F.2d 108 (Fourth Circuit, 1957)
United States v. Twin City Power Co.
248 F.2d 108 (Fourth Circuit, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 F.2d 165, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-297972-acres-of-land-more-or-less-in-the-county-of-ca4-1956.