Case ID: us-ct-cl_51/html/0491-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McKenna", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE F. ARCHER AND KATE C. ARCHER v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [47 O. Cls. B., 248; 241 U. S. B„ 119.]
    
      On the defendants' appeal.
    
    The plantation of the claimant is valuable agricultural land on the Mississippi, subject only to occasional overflow. The Mississippi Biver Commission constructs a dike upon the land, the effect of which at times of high water is to deflect the flood waters of the river across a large portion of the plantation with such force as to scour and destroy much of the top soil, move away houses, and leave a deposit of sand and gravel, totally destroying the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
    The court below decides:
    Where a dike was erected on agricultural land by the Mississippi River Commission, and was the work of the United States alone, the effect of which is to destroy the value of the land permanently for agricultural purposes, the defendants are liable under the Constitution.
    The distinction between this case and Bedford’s (192 U. S. R.) is that there the Government did not invade the land, but merely sought to preserve the operation of natural causes, while here the Government erected its dike on the claimants’ land, covering more than 31 acres, which work directly caused the taking of 3,664.6 acres more.
    It is settled that whenever there has been an actual physical taking of a part of a tract of land the compensation will be the market value of the part appropriated, and the damage to so much of the remainder as may result from the taking. Land can not be invaded and taken for a public work without subjecting the Government to liability for all the land taken, including that incidentally destroyed.
    Where a claimant recovers for land taken, judgment will be entered at the time of the decision for an amount stated, but before the judgment is certified the rule laid down in Hey-ward’s ease (46 C. Cls. R., 484, 501), as to the survey and conveyance of the land taken and possible correction of the judgment, will be followed.
    The decision of the court below is reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
   Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 1,1916.