Legal Document

329 U.S. 599 67 Supreme Court Reporter 606 91 L.Ed. 532 ALBRECHT et al.v.UNITED STATES. LINNENBRINGER versus SAME. PITMAN al. OLIVER Q.W.S.S. REALTY & INVESTMENT CO. Nos. 148 to 151 and 155. Argued Jan. 8, 1947. Decided Feb. 3, Messrs. Richmond C. Coburn Samuel M. Watson, both of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioners. Mr. Roger Pacific KF135 P2 Marquis, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 The question here is whether Government obligated pay interest in connection with following land purchase arrangements condemnation proceedings. made separate contracts petitioners buy certain lands from them be used a public purpose. stipulated price paid at an indefinite future time when conditions had been fulfilled.1 They also granted right immediate possession. Later questioned validity attempted rescind on ground that by reason fraud other things contract prices were grossly excessive represented far more than 'just compensation' required Fifth Amendment. It filed proceedings District Courts under 40 Statutes-at-Large 241, as amended, 50 United States Code KF62 § 171, Annotated KF65 U5 asking fix after hearing evidence subject. declaration taking 46 1421, 258a, same depositing sums money, substantially less prices, which it estimated true property taken. then entered orders divesting owners all title vesting Government. A companion case held identical valid was appealed eventually reached this Prior pending appeal these vigorously asserted terms fixed agreed transfer possession their properties. Several years later upheld case.2 Thereupon Government, complying decision, full into Courts. prayed landowners' compensation without interest. Petitioners they 'taking' guaranteed Amendment's provision compensation.' contended not applicable, no because did provide it. One decided favor 60 F.Supp. 741, but two against 61 199.3 Circuit Appeals 8 Cir., 155 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 73, 77. In involving somewhat similar facts, Baugh, 149 190, Because apparent conflict presented widespread importance, we certiorari. facts issues, so deem relevant disposition cases, are identical, consider together. 2 We agree cases. cases submitted determination compensation,' courts have evolved rule whereby element designated sometimes allowed. Under rule, absence agreement parties fixing compensation, first fair market value owner, whom there counterclaim, always entitled payment much. But where deferred, has something make owner whole, afford him This additional measured reasonable Thus, constitutional sense, held, absent settlement between parties, plus 'interest' date payment.4 3 method determine adversary proceeding failed previously its amount exclusive determining question. Amendment does prohibit landowners agreeing themselves what just See Danforth States, 308 271, 231, 84 240. Nor bar embodying contract, done here. And certainly party such stands upon enforce his own advantage, he cannot successfully disavow those conceives disadvantage. That precisely position lands, concerning never complained. At end prolonged litigation, barred showing compensations just, excessive. Having thus bound measure compensation', say least, generously meet requirement, now seek escape burdens provisions. invoke pursuit provide—contracts willing abandon. 4 answer contention posture transactions passed out range For reasoning added part court applicable situation. determines ompensation, fixes bare adds sum compensate deferred whole do think formula fits contractual compensation. Exactly factor consider, addition value, easily ascertained. very group illustrates may many factors. example, provided possession, though none contemplated payments. know amounts bargains values estimated, unarticulated, allowances anticipated delays payment. factors, need enumerated, prices. These demonstrate inadvisability applying interest, specially designed enable calculate entirely different situation supposedly due regard interests, bargain Since chosen stand will receive property, rather courts, must look including called 5 overlooked conclusion our holding is. statute authorized agents prior claim denied. decision reasserted principle begin until taking. After noting several incidents constitute taking, interval Thus considered neither directly involved, raised, nor given special consideration. further incidental distinction anticipate would precede 6 Turning contracts, apart regarding Amendment, find No authorizes like this. specific or statutory provisions runs even Government's purchases delayed. Smyth 302 329, 353, 58 248, 252, 82 294, 114 American Law Reports 807; Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 585, 588, 398, 399; New York Rayon Importing company al., 654, 659, 601, 604. 7 There some argument should allowed Declaration Taking Act, Stat.1421, filed, Cf. supra, 399. provision, however, embodiment governing already said equally statute. contains purchase. here, while litigation statute, petitioners' reliance took claims outside purview left governed rules applied suit brought terms. receiving any contained promise Affirmed. 9 REED DOUGLAS, dissenting. 10 'The stipulation merely effect relieving having proof running risk might unsatisfactory.' 192. 'right found Constitution lost contract.' Id., page 193. justness underlined fact taken over four before made. renounced retained properties Act terms, condemnee except court. Muschany 324 49, 65 442, 89 744, carried suits obtained titles condemnation. 11 actions price, stated became deposited trial filed. Interest period final decree exceeded condition conveyance good merchantable title. second if 'for reason' Attorney General approve title, could obtain appropriate district event 744. Some claimed price. petitioner only filing difference finally deposited. awarded latter theory Seaboard Air Line Ry. 261 299, 306, 43 354, 356, 664; Shoshone Tribe Indians 299 476, 496, 497, 57 244, 251, 81 360; Jacobs 290 13, 16, 17, 54 26, 27, 28, 78 142, 96 1; Klamath Moadoc Tribes, 304 119, 123, 799, 801, 1219.

Classification Label: 3