CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EMINENT DOMAIN-DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PREVENT ENEMY CAPTURE

Authors

John F. Spindler S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Respondent oil companies owned terminal facilities in Manila at the time of the Japanese attack on the Philippines. The terminals were destroyed by the United States Army as the Japanese entered the city. Although the Army had requisitioned oil from the terminals prior to their destruction, respondents were bound by the decision of the court of claims to the effect that prior to December 27, 1941, when respondents were notified that the terminals themselves were requisitioned for the purpose of destruction, there had been no taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. The court of claims allowed recovery on the theory that destruction of property for the common defense was a taking for public use and required just compensation. On appeal the United States Supreme Court held, the Fifth Amendment does not require compensation for the destruction of private property in war time where the purpose is to hinder or impede the enemy. United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., (U.S. 1952) 73 S.Ct. 200.

Recommended Citation

John F. Spindler S.Ed., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EMINENT DOMAIN-DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PREVENT ENEMY CAPTURE, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 739 (1953).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss5/10