CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EMINENT DOMAIN - VALUE AS FIXED BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES - WHEN IS PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PAYMENT OF INTEREST?

Authors

John H. Pickering, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

Defendant's land, situated between the riverside and set-back levees of the proposed floodway extending along the western bank of the Mississippi from Bird's Point to New Madrid, Missouri, was inundated in the flood of 1937, at which time the floodway, with its system of fuse plugs (whereby the riverbank levee was to be lowered to allow flood waters to spend their destructive force by spreading over larger areas) was not yet in operation. Thereafter the United States, under authority conferred by the Flood Control Act of 1928, instituted condemnation proceedings to secure flowage rights over defendant's land. Defendant claimed that the amount of compensation due had been set by an agreement entered into with the War Department in 1932 and that he should be allowed interest thereon from the date that his land was taken, which he alleged to be at the time that the Flood Control Act of 1928 was passed, or in the alternative, either the time that construction was begun on the set-back levee (October 21, 1929) or the time it was completed (October 31, 1932). Held, the amount of compensation to be paid was that agreed upon between defendant and the War Department, and interest was not allowable thereon as there had been no taking at any of the dates alleged by defendant. Danforth, v. United States, 308 U. S. 271, 60 S. Ct. 231 (1939).

Recommended Citation

John H. Pickering, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EMINENT DOMAIN - VALUE AS FIXED BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES - WHEN IS PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PAYMENT OF INTEREST?, 38 Mich. L. Rev. 1088 (1940).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol38/iss7/11