The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-11-13
The valuation OF Aqucduct Lands.

The Valuation OF Aqucduct Lands.
A decision Of great Importance to
the people Of this State was rendered
by the Supreme Court OF the United
States on Monday. WILLIAM SAGE.
Jr., a citizen and resident Of New
Jersey, was the owner OF lands which
were proposed to be taken by the city
Of New York for reservoir purposes
and the building Of the Ashokan Dam.
The city through the Corporation
Counsel instituted appropriate legal
proceedings 30 acquire the title to
these lands. Commissioners were duly
appointed who estimated the value Of
Mr.. SAGE's lands with the buildings
and quarry thereon at the sum Of Sll,-
1850. Their report. however. showed
that S4,324.45 OF this sum was
awarded because OF the availability
and adaptability Of the land for reser.
voir purposes. 1t was apparent, there
fore, that II the special value Of the
land for uses in the construction Of n
reservoir had been left out OF consid-
Grafton the award would have been
$I.324.45 less than It was.
Upon a review of the report Of the
commissioners by the Circuit Court Of
the United States for the Southern
District Of New York II was held that
they had adopted the proper meas
ure Of damages in this respect: and
United States Circuit Court Of Ap-
Isals in this city, consisting of Judges
COKE. WARD and Holt. The opinion
Of the Circuit Court of Appeals was
written by Circuit Judge COKE. Il dis
tinguished nephew Of the late Senator
Roscoe CoNKLING. Judge CoXE said
that the principal question before the
court vas whether the additional
award Of S4.324.45 was justified be-
cause the land Of Mr.. SAGE was Iecu-
larry available and adaptable for res.
ervoir purposes.
The answe to this question ,le-
pended largely upon whether the Cir
cult Court Of Appeals was TO be con
trolled by the rule of the New York
state courts or of the United States
courts. The New York courts. In the
ca 80 Of a land owner named MCGoNTRN.
had refused to receive evidence AS 10
| the value OF lands taken for the .Asho-
kan Dam because Of their adaptablllty
to reservoir USE unless purchasers
could be found who would pay more
therefor on account Of such adapta-
bility and the treatment of that case
in the Appellate Division ami the New
York Court of Appeals evidently i'm
pressed Judge CoXE with the idea that
the State tribunals looked with dis
favor upon the measure Of damages
which had been applied in the Sage
case. Nevertheless. he and his asso-
| ciates concluded that the latter rule
vas correct. and they upheld the spe.
cial award based upon peculiar useful
ness OF the land for a reservoir.
This rule has now been pronounced
incorrect by the Supreme Court Of the
United States. The fair market value
Of the land ut the time when it Is
taken Is held TO be the just compenSa-
ton which the Constitution guaran-
tees to the land wne whose property
Is taken for a public use. or course
this includes It's fair market value for
any use to which 1t is adapted by
reason of Its location and condition i;
but this does not mean that a single
special use growing out Of the very
taking Itself can lie considered as en-
HANGING the value. The availability
which may be taken into account In
making up the award must he an
availability appealing to purchasers
generally and not merely to the party
seeking to acquire the property.
| When the McGovern case was be-
! fore the Appellate Division Of the
| Third Department in January, 1909,
Mr.. Justice SEwELL, who wrote the
opinion Of that court, said: 1T Is
substantially undisputed that the
value for reservoir purposes is en-.
tirely due to the fact that the city
has determined to build a reservoir
and that the owner IL now seeking to
make the necessity Of the city his
opportunity" The Supreme Court OF
the United States must have taken
the same view Of the Sage case.