Document: 360 U.S. 328 79 S.Ct. 1193 3 L.Ed.2d 1275 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.93.970 ACRES OF LAND et al. No. 573. Argued May 21, 1959. Decided June 22, Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Leonard R. Hartenfeld, respondent. Justice BLACK, delivered opinion of Court. 1 The basic question presented in this case is whether United States can have adjudicated under one complaint (1) claim by a third person valuable possessory interest government property and (2) condemnation value that interest, if any. In 1947 leased an airfield to respondent Illinois Aircraft Services & Sales Co. preamble lease stated because strategic field Government considered it essential retain 'in stand-by status post-war use connection with Naval Aviation activities * *.'1 One paragraph provided: 2 'It understood agreed will at all times be revocable upon presentation notice cancellation Lessee, writing, sixty (60) days prior such termination, event national emergency decision Secretary Navy revocation essential.' 1954 Army wanted aerial defense missile (NIKE) site. Timely was signatures Secretaries Navy, stating declared President 1950 still effect both deemed essential. Respondent declined leave land, claiming had gone beyond authority granted attempting revoke rather than mentioned lease. order obtain possession land as soon possible—and without waiting try out validity separate action or actions—the filed condemn whatever might have. Although Government's alleged revoked and, effect, no compensable taken, District Court ruled suing 'elected' abandon its revocation. On basis court found let jury determine value. Under instructions only needed 'aviation purposes' NIKE site not purpose, returned $25,000 verdict respondents. appeal Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed divided court. 258 F.2d 17. It held doctrine 'election remedies' applied barred consideration state federal law governed could validly terms planned purposes.' To review severe restrictions court's holding places on ability get, quickly, may need purposes, we certiorari. 358 945, 354, 351.2 4 We cannot agree permitted true agreement states leased, sold, naval aviation activities. also immediately folow ing there statement, common many contracts, 'Now Therefore, foregoing, covenants hereinafter mentioned, Government' leases airport. There indication, however, either itself far been shown history agreement, formal legal statement following meant limit express unequivocal clause allowing emergency. Instead easily understood, view Surplus Property Act 1944, which required surplus disposed of, mere why surplus.3 addition statute authorized airport provided shall 'at any time, unless omission provision from promote public interest. each during President.'4 circumstances, assume explict means less seems mean. therefore hold valid effective. 5 follows necessarily application would put impossible situation. For doctrine, must choose power give up right immediate law, here questioned. see reason justice Hobson's choice should imposed forced pay rightfully owns merely attempted avoid delays applicable laws seek prevent. Such strict rule against combining different causes certainly harmony modern legislation rules designed make trials efficient, expeditious inexpensive fairness permit.5 6 Respondents argue, election remedies part applies here. view. Condemnation involves governmental functions. See Kohl v. States, 91 367, 23 L.Ed. 449. often where interests Federal are concerned, Congress chooses applicable.6 apparent has made here.7 7 judgment reversed. 8 Reversed. reads: 'Whereas, value, said facilities thereon, comprising Outlying Airfield, retained activities; Lessee wise detrimental present Department, but contrary best Government.' below conflict San Geronimo Dev. Co., Cir., 154 78 Turner, 175 644. 58 Stat. 766, 767—770, 777, amended, 50 U.S.C.App. (1946 ed.) §§ 1612(e), 1613, 1620, 1632, U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1612, 1632. 61 774, 34 U.S.C. § 522a. current version 10 (Supp. V) 2667, U.S.C.A. 2667. deciding although argument applicability statute. That 'revocable time.' 39 559, 522. Cf. Conley Gibson, 355 41, 48, 99, 103, 80. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 1, 2, 18, 28 See, e.g., 374, 449; Miller, 317 369, 380, 63 276, 283, 87 336; Clearfield Trust 318 363, 573, 838; Bank America Nat. T. Ass'n Parnell, 352 29, 77 119, 93. rely 26 316, 171, proceedings like involved were 'to prosecuted accordance relating suits wherein instiute d.' But settled language conformity procedural matters only. 379—380, 282—283 (citing 25 94, 33 591); Kanakanui 9 244 F. 923; State Nebraska 164 866, affirming 19,573.59 Acres Land, 70 F.Supp. 610. And insofar clearly repealed Rule 71A, Rules Civil Procedure, time suit brought. wholly case. reaching conclusion possible other cases re-enactment 70A 148, 2663(a) (1956), 2663(a), subsequent repeal, retroactive re-enactment, September 1958. 72 1565, 1568.

Category: 7