Case ID: us-ct-cl_59/html/0959-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Butler", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BROOKS-SCANLON CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES; THE UNITED STATES v. BROOKS-SCANLON CORPORATION
    [58 C. Cls. 274; 265 U. S. 106]
    Judgment against the United States in the court below for a portion of the amount1 claimed. On both ' parties’ appeal the judgment was reversed, and the Supreme Court decided:
    Orders of the Emergency Fleet Corporation directed to a shipbuilder expropriated a vessel in process of construction under a contract between the builder and the plaintiff, together with the materials purchased by the builder for its completion, the benefits and advantages of payments made, and of plans; specifications, and prior inspection service provided, by the plaintiff, and placed the Fleet Corporation in the plaintiff’s shoes with respect to tlie past and future execution of the contract by the builder. The United- States thus obtained the ship early and the benefit of prices much lower than those prevailing at time of requisition.
    
      Held: (a) That the plaintiff’s rights under the contract with the builder were taken.
    (b) That the just compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled did not depend upon the title to the materials used in the construction, and was not to be gauged by the progress payments made, or by the compensation payable if the Government had merely canceled the contract; but was to be measured by the value of the plaintiff’s rights under the contract at the time of the taking.
    (c) .Tust eompiensation is the sum which, considering all the. circumstances, uncertainties of the war, etc., probably could have been obtained for an assignment of the plaintiff’s rights under the contract, i. e., the sum that would in all probability result" from fair negotiations between an owner willing to sell and a purchaser desirous of buying.
    (t?) The value of such ships at the time of requisition, the then probable value at the time fixed for delivery, the contract price, payments made and to be made, the time to elapse before completion and delivery, the possibility that, by reason of the Government’s activity in' controlling materials, the contractor might not have been able to complete the ship on time, loss of the. use of money to be sustained, other expenditures to be made between requisition and delivery — all should be given consideration in determining the plaintiff’s loss caused by the taking.
    Value rather than replacement cost should be taken into account in ascertaining just compensation.
   Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 12, 1924.