|
!snfro "'
<br />Ind Ita
<br />inn is litia.11c
<br />of a' "v
<br />I whiNN
<br />,lging .,u
<br />c undert
<br />purchas(
<br />ceased t
<br />••atc indiv
<br />istitute ai
<br />.d from
<br />iblie use, a
<br />is were cot
<br />rtgt it not suli
<br />ren prima &
<br />he land lo'a-
<br />2 Ind 493118
<br />-ld that t
<br />under the
<br />And remove'a
<br />had been aoq
<br />roceedings fo
<br />here the mill
<br />,,ut was run M
<br />loing a large'
<br />nufacture and
<br />v Roselawn I
<br />W 279; Twin
<br />r Electric Ca
<br />ismd 284 US
<br />Ct not to hi
<br />the waters
<br />here th
<br />a purcl
<br />streamt
<br />ds, and
<br />ar;od of
<br />tnational
<br />ins Co.
<br />205 US
<br />,►, `�� J�„ )d I..\fINI:,N'I' I)f»IAIN §91
<br />!l(l. St,l)(,ni,r, consutcnt, or inferior tsu.
<br />( iielcr �cncr;il authont\ to condemn fr,r a public use, it is settled that prop
<br />crtS d01,tcd to one public use mad- be condcnuted for another which is of
<br />•,,p erior r:liik in respect of public ncccssity, or which mad be exercised con-
<br />,i,tcntl� s;ith the use first attaching." C;encrall\, where it is the public through
<br />►�,. of its entities that seeks to condemn property already devoted to a
<br />I,t,blic use, and public ownership is thercb\• abstituted, the property is said to
<br />I,c clevoted to a "higher use" and the change is therefore regarded as for a
<br />public• use -is
<br />of course, where lands are necessar,• to a public use, and are devoted
<br />thereto, the\' cannot be condemned for a lesser public use. For example, the
<br />,,instruction of a levee for the reclam-tion of land from the floodwater of a
<br />,;�t•I will not, although it is for a public use, be permitted to destroy a portion
<br />,,f ttic water supply system of a municipal corpoiation.1°
<br />Federal takings.
<br />I he application to takings by the United States of property of a state or
<br />.,,I,division or agency thereof, of the concept that property devoted to a
<br />I,,,I,lic• lise may be taken for another public use which involves a greater
<br />,1,-Qrce of public necessity' than the first, but may not be taken for a
<br />,,.,,,lld use which involves a lesser degree of such necessity, is somewhat
<br />,I) , tire. While obitcr lanruage may be found in the decisions indicat-
<br />,I,,; that particular uses to which the United States proposes to devote
<br />pr„perti, previously held ,or a public use, by a state or subdivision thereof,
<br />.,ry of greater public necessity than the use involved in the state's owner -
<br />.hip or occupancy," and vice versa,' or even that the sues of the Federal
<br />t;,wernment are automatically superior to any uses to w:iich the state may have
<br />Irvt,ted the property,t application of the doctrine in question so as to affect
<br />'In, .1cttt;ll holding of a case has occurred only rarely.'
<br />. d 921, 27 S Ct 790, error dismd 212 US
<br />1 -1'3 1. ed 374. 29 S Ct 355.
<br />Inrtotatiort: 12 ALR 1509, 1510.
<br />�• to abandonment and nonuser generally,
<br />i 1.15 et seq., infra.
<br />IT. United States v Carmack, 329 US 230.
<br />I. rd 209. 67 S Ct 252, reh den 329 US
<br />It. 91 1. ed 706. 67 S Ct 627; Mobile & O.
<br />k Co. v Postal Tel. Cable Co. 120 Ala 21,
<br />:I Sol 408: Postal Tel. Cable Co. v Chicago,
<br />I & I.. R. Co. 30 Ind App 654, 66 NE 919;
<br />\mvrican Tel. & Tel. Co. v St. Louis, I. M.
<br />C S. R. Co. 202 Mo 656, 101 SW 576;
<br />Slate. by State Highway Commissioner v
<br />t'nion County Park Commission, 89 NJ Super
<br />-'n2. 214 A2d 446. -
<br />18. long I And Water Supply Co. v Brook-
<br />'-1 166 US 685, 41 L ed 1165, 17 S Ct 718;
<br />\11u,n Power Co. v Los Angeles (CA9 Cal)
<br />►t t F 784. cert den 262 US 751, 67 L ed
<br />1.I 1. 43 S Ct 700• Re Brooklyn. 143 NY 596,
<br />111 \E 983, affd Long Island Water Supply
<br />t S• Brooklyn, 166 US 685, 41 L ed 1165,
<br />17 S Ct 718; State ex rel. Washington Water
<br />Power Co. %, Superior Court for Grant
<br />County, 8 Wash 2d 122, 1 It P2d 577.
<br />Annotation: 173 ALR 1370 et Seq.
<br />19. Ft. Worth lmprov. Dist. v Ft. Worth,
<br />106 Tex 148, 158 SW 16-1.
<br />20. United States v Tiffin (CC Ohio) 190
<br />F 279; United States v Certain Land (CC
<br />NH) 165 F 783.
<br />Annotation: 91 L e1 234.
<br />1. Re Certain Land i i Lawrence (1)0 Mass)
<br />119 F 453.
<br />Annotation: 91 L c 234.
<br />2. United States v Carmack, 329 US 230, 91
<br />L ed 209, 67 S Ct 252.
<br />Annotation: 91 L ed 234.
<br />Z. United States v 4450.72 Acres of Land
<br />(DC Minn) 27 F Supp 167. affd Minnesota
<br />v United States (CA8) 125 F2d 636.
<br />Annotation: 91 L ed 234.
<br />747
<br />
|