Opinion ID: 1506646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eminent Domain and Due Process.

Text: Appellant contends the taking of its property under this act is an attempt to deprive it of property without due process of law, contrary to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The title of the act declares its purpose to be To expedite the construction of public buildings and works    by enabling possession and title of sites to be taken in advance of final judgment in proceedings    under the power of eminent domain. 46 Stat. 1421. The power of eminent domain is not dependent upon any specific grant in the Constitution; it is inherent in sovereignty, limited and conditioned by the just-compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment. Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581, 587, 43 S.Ct. 442, 67 L.Ed. 809. The act provides that in any condemnation proceedings brought by the United States, upon filing the petition and before judgment but after filing a declaration of taking and the deposit in court of the amount of estimated compensation, the land in question shall be deemed to be condemned and taken for the use of the United States and title shall vest in the Government. The statute authorizes the taking of possession where certain requirements have been met, particularly where adequate provision has been made for just compensation for the parties entitled thereto. In the case here such provision for compensation was made, and the requirements of the Fifth Amendment were not violated. United States v. Meyer, 7 Cir., 113 F.2d 387, 392. With the petition there was presented to the court the declaration of taking, and the appraised value of the property, in the sum of $2,168,000, was deposited in the registry of the court for appellant and the others entitled to share therein. Thereupon the court found that the preliminaries required by the act had been complied with. The court fixed the time, after notice, upon which appellant should surrender possession to the petitioner. Following the provisions of the statute, the court also decreed that the right to just compensation for the property taken vested in the persons entitled thereto, the amount of such compensation to be ascertained and awarded in the proceedings pursuant to law. The law further provides that if just compensation as finally ascertained exceeds the deposit, the court is required to enter judgment against the United States for the amount of deficiency together with interest at the rate of six percent from the date of taking to the date of payment. The Fifth Amendment does not entitle the owner to be paid in advance of the taking where the statute provides for ascertaining just compensation, and the Government has impliedly promised to pay that compensation. Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 21, 60 S.Ct. 413, 84 L.Ed. 554; Crozier v. Fried Krupp, etc., 224 U.S. 290, 306, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771; Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 62, 40 S.Ct. 62, 64 L. Ed. 135; Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262, U.S. 668, 677, 43 S.Ct. 684, 67 L.Ed. 1167. Where the federal Government under the Constitution has power to undertake the purposes for which the land is sought to be acquired, then the use is a public one. A military purpose is such a public use. United States v. Forbes, D.C., 259 F. 585. The Congress has authorized the Secretary of War to determine the necessity for acquiring such property and the extent of the taking. Bragg v. Weaver, supra; Barnidge v. United States, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d 295; Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, supra, 261 U.S. at page 585, 43 S.Ct. 442, 67 L.Ed. 809; United States v. Gettysburg Elec. Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 685, 16 S.Ct. 427, 40 L.Ed. 576. The purpose of laws such as the one under discussion is to permit the Government in its sovereign capacity to proceed with necessary public works without being hampered by delays which might occasion great and irreparable injury. When the greatest combination of autocratic powers of all time is ruthlessly engaged in an attempt to strangle the liberty of the world, to delay action in achieving military objectives may well be fatal. Here, in an emergency of war, the Government through its Secretary of War, acting under statutes passed for the purpose, has found and declared that the property taken is necessary for military purposes; and provision has been made to recompense the owners fully for the taking. Appellant, however, insists that it should have the right to halt the progress of the work until it can be heard in the various courts to prevent the Government from taking this necessary action. The sovereign state should not be reduced to such impotency. Where the Secretary of War has proceeded as prescribed by the Act of Congress, the court will not go behind his declaration to inquire into his intentions. Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 55, 66, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162; United States v. Forbes, supra, 259 F. at pages 591, 592. It is also urged that the congressional mandates expressed in the Conformity Statutes, 28 U.S.C.A. § 724, 40 U.S.C.A. § 258, 50 U.S.C.A. § 171, have been violated by the proceedings herein. This position is not tenable. The complaint conforms to the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure of California, Section 1244, which is sufficient. Central Pac. Ry. v. Feldman, 152 Cal. 303, 92 P. 849. The California decisions are also in harmony with those from the federal courts in holding that due process required no more than that the owner be given an opportunity to be heard at some stage of the proceedings upon reasonable notice of the pending suit. Marblehead Land Co. v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App. 408, 412, 217 P. 536. Peck v. Superior Court, 138 Cal.App. 222, 31 P.2d 1042. Moreover, the requirement of the statute that the proceedings provided for are to be prosecuted in accordance with the laws relating to suits for the condemnation of property of the states wherever the proceedings may be instituted is not to be so construed as to defeat the purpose of the act. Forbes v. United States, 5 Cir., 268 F. 273, 276; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U.S. 337, 13 S.Ct. 356, 37 L.Ed. 194. The particular manner in which the land is to be used for the purpose of its taking is sufficiently pleaded when set forth in the terms of the statute under which the proceeding is taken. Northern Light, etc., Co. v. Stacher, 13 Cal.App. 404, 109 P. 896. The proceedings here substantially conform to the California law upon the same subject except so far as controlled by the act of Congress under which the proceedings were instituted or by other laws of the United States. Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 513, 16 S.Ct. 397, 40 L.Ed. 510. Affirmed.