Court Opinion

ID: 9451438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:17:39.567129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:44.755738
License: Public Domain

WHITAKER, Senior Judge
(dissenting in part):
I dissent from the opinion of the majority only to this extent: I do not think plaintiff is entitled to recover from the United States for a temporary taking of its property between the date of the condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in July 1957, and March 1957, the time the contractor, employed by the United States, entered upon plaintiff’s property, cut trees, bulldozed the land, removed soil, used the land as a dumping ground, and destroyed plaintiff’s dam and headgates, thus diverting the course of the water from the Hoosac River away from the canal leading to the tannery. March 1957 is the date of the taking of plaintiff’s property by the United States. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the land taken at that time. If this value is greater than the value in July 1957 when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts condemned the land, plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference, but if there was no difference in the value of the land on the two dates, plaintiff is entitled to recover nothing in addition to the amount awarded in the condemnation proceedings instituted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The taking by the United States was not a temporary one but a permanent one, and, hence, I cannot agree that plaintiff is entitled to the rental value of the land between March and July.
Otherwise, I concur in the opinion of the majority.