Case Name: YORKVIEW FINANCE CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1925-05-04
Citations: 60 Ct. Cl. 646
Docket Number: No. A-282
Parties: YORKVIEW FINANCE CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 646–649

Head Matter:
YORKVIEW FINANCE CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. A-282.
Decided May 4, 1925]
On the Proofs
Eminent domain; just compensation; appraisal. — Where duly appointed appraisers have based their findings oir farm values, and there has been an extensive sale of lots in the neighborhood caused by the presence of a large manufacturing plant, the court, in arriving at just compensation for a taking, will consider the situation created by the presence of the factory.
The Reporter's statement of the case:
Mr. Allan D. Jones for the plaintiff.
Mr. Edmond 0. Fletcher, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General William J. Donovan, for the defendant.
The following are the facts as found by the court:
I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its principal office in the city of Norfolk, Virginia, and the officers and stockholders are citizens of the United States of America, and have at all times borne true and loyal allegiance to the Government of the United States.
II. On and prior to November 8, 1918, the plaintiff, the Yorkview Finance Corporation, was the sole owner of the following-described real estate, situated in York County, Virginia, which it had theretofore platted into blocks, lots, streets, and alleys:
All that certain tract of land in Bruton district, York County, Virginia, containing 76534 acres, known as “Lans-down ” and shown and designated on sheet 2 of the Government Survey Y. & D. — 87046 (said survey being on file in the office of the Solicitor of the Navy Department, Washington, D. C.) as parcel 2; together with riparian rights. Said tract being bounded in part by King’s Creek and Felgate’s Creek. Excepting therefrom lots of land, about 83 acres, sold to sundry parties, 62 in number.
III. The President of the United States, in determining just compensation for the above-described jiroperty, treated all of the aforesaid subdivision as belonging to the York-view Finance Corporation, not making any award to the owners of lots therein. The lot owners presented their claims to the board of valuation.
IV. The whole of the subdivision known as “Lansdown” is located within the tract of land described in the proclamation of the President made in pursuance of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1918 (Public, No. 182 — 65th Cong.), and all of the said lands hereinabove described were taken by the President of the United' States for the United States under said act; and on the 8th day of November, 1918, plaintiff surrendered possession, control, and title to the property aforesaid to the United States, and thereafter the President of the United States determined that just compensation for the properties above described, considering the sold and unsold lots of the subdivision as belonging to plaintiff, was $35,000.
V. The property was acquired by plaintiff for the purpose of developing a town site by subdividing and improving the property and selling lots and blocks thereof for building dwellings and business houses. Sixty-two sales were made, total price $31,250, of which sum there was paid plaintiff $19,597, the residue of the purchase price being evidenced by purchasers’ notes. The area of lots sold was about one-eighth of total acreage. What amount of money the plaintiff expended for improving the property and employing agents is not shown. Sales were made between May 15 and the latter part of August, 1918.
VI. The board of valuation of commandeered property of the Navy Department reported that just compensation for the 765% acres known as “ Lansdown ” would be $35,000. The finding of the board was based upon a report made by appraisers employed by the board, the appraisers being S. G. Howison, F. H. Ball, and W. A. Bozarth.
VII. The amount so determined by the President of the United States as just compensation for the property taken was and is unsatisfactory to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff, pursuant to the provisions of the act above mentioned, received from the United States 75 per cent of the amount so fixed by the President as just compensation for the said properties, which said 75 per cent amounts to $26,250, and plaintiff reserved all right under the act aforesaid, the said sum having been paid to and received by the plaintiff on June 10, 1920. The fair cash value of the land and riparian rights, excluding the 83 acres sold, was on the 8th day of November, 1918, the sum of $58,560. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment of $32,310, with interest from November 8, 1918 (at which date title and possession passed); and interest on the sum of $26,250 (three-fourths of the award) from November 8, 1918, to the 10th day of June, 1920, when said sum was paid plaintiff.
The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT
This case involves a question of just compensation for the taking of private property by the defendant. The plaintiff was allowed by the board of valuation of commandeered property of the Navy Department, $35,000 for 76514 acres of land. From the record of the case the board seems to have proceeded upon the theory of farm lands, and given values accordingly. The tract had been platted and subdivided and lots sold therefrom to private individuals, amounting to 83 acres, for $31,250, the plaintiff receiving in cash therefor $19,597. The sales thus made, after deducting cost of making the same, it is said, show the market value of the lands. With this contention we do not, in all respects, agree. The prices obtained do not reflect the exact market value. The sales were stimulated by promises of improvements to be made by the plaintiff, and in many instances were speculative. They were, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, quite out of proportion to the market value of other lands in the immediate neighborhood, and do not afford exclusive evidence of market value.
In our view of the. case the lands did have a market value in excess of what was allowed, There existed at the time the property was taken something more, than the usual state ,of affairs in this locality. A large manufacturing plant, operated by Du Pont & Co., made a demand for this property over and above its normal value as farm lands, and, save for the intervention of the Government, there is little doubt that more of it could have been advantageously disposed of. The extensive sale of lots in this vacant and unimproved property clearly indicates this fact. Considering the whole record and reconciling the vast differences in estimates of value, we think the tract claimed for was reasonably worth $58,560.
Judgment will be awarded the plaintiff for $32,310, with 6 per cent interest thereon from the date of taking until paid, and in addition interest on the sum of $26,250. It is so ordered.