|
E
<br />it. Is
<br />c use,
<br />.vice `�'sYt
<br />s fro
<br />Ind "
<br />nn
<br />' is nti
<br />"sties.
<br />of a
<br />l .hill
<br />aging .,UA
<br />c under
<br />purchasel
<br />ceased tc
<br />'atc indivi
<br />,stitutc an
<br />:d from
<br />;blic use, a
<br />,s were to,
<br />ngt it not sulk
<br />vein prima tear
<br />he land to a
<br />2 Ind 493�
<br />_Id that t
<br />under the
<br />end remove It
<br />had been sto'
<br />roeeedingt fa
<br />here the mM
<br />wt was run wl
<br />loing a large4i
<br />tufacture and
<br />Roselawn C
<br />tV 279; Twin'
<br />r Electric Co.
<br />ismd 284 US
<br />d not to ha
<br />the waters
<br />here
<br />a pu
<br />of
<br />o. r wall
<br />Amotnt
<br />notional
<br />;omen Bc
<br />njr Co. 4
<br />205 US
<br />EMINENT DOMAIN § 91
<br />!?(I. Sttlx•tiur, consLStrnt, or inferior uu•.
<br />(•„,I(•r gcncral authont\ 10 condenut fr,r ;I public usc, 'it is settled that prop-
<br />rrt� (Ic\•r,1rd to one public use nlay be condcntrlecl for another which is of
<br />,I;t.r;,tr r;Ink in respect of public necessity, or which may be exercised con-
<br />,;,tt•1ttl� ""III the use first attaching. Gencrally, «'here it is the public through
<br />t►f its entities that seeks to condemn property already devoted to a
<br />I,,,I►lie use, and public ownership is thereby suktitutcd, the property is said to
<br />I>< devoted s to a "higher use" and the change is therefore regarded as for a
<br />I►ul►lie usc.
<br />(7f course, where lands arc necessan' to a public use, and arc devoted
<br />thereto, the%, cannot be condemned for a lesser public use. For example, the
<br />, onstruction of a levee for the reclamation of land from the floodwater of a
<br />,;�,•, will not, although it is for a public use, be permitted to destroy a portion
<br />,f the %,v;tter supply system of a municipal corporation.19
<br />411. -- Federal takings.
<br />I -he application to takings by the united States of property of a state or
<br />.uhdivision or agency thereof, of the concept that property devoted to a
<br />I,ttl►lit use may be taken for another public use which involves a greater
<br />.h•cree of public necessity than the first, but may not be taken for a
<br />.4•14111d u-,c which involves a lesser degree of such necessity, is somewhat
<br />..It•, tile. While ubitct languast n1;1% be found in the decisions indicat-
<br />,ttt; III.It particular uses to which the United States proposes to devote
<br />itl,►pert� previously held for a public use, by a state or subdivision thereof,
<br />AT of greater public necessity than the use involved in the slate's owner-
<br />•161) or occupancy," and vice versa," or even that the uses of the Federal
<br />t wit-rnment arc automatically superior to any uses to which the state may have
<br />h•t„tcd the property! application of the doctrine in question so as to affect
<br />h, .,cell;tl holding of a case has occurred only rarely.'
<br />t . o1 921. 27 S Ct 790. error disntd 212 US
<br />1.. '0 1. rd 371. 29 S Ct 355.
<br />Ir,mmnlion: 12 ALR 1509. 1510.
<br />N• to abandonment and nonuser generally,
<br />. i 115 et seq., infr5.
<br />17. l.'nited Stares %• Carmack, 329 US 230.
<br />I. eel 209. 67 S Ct 252, reh den 329 US
<br />11. 91 1. ed 706. 61 S Ct 627; Mobile & O.
<br />k Co. v Postal Tel. Cable Co. 120 Ala 219
<br />: t S., 408; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v Chieaito,
<br />1 - L. R. Co. 30 Ind App 654, 66 NE 919;
<br />N„n•rican Tel. & Tel. Co. v St. I-ouis, I. Ii
<br />& S. R. Co. 202 Mo 656. 101 SW 576;
<br />Slate. by State Highway Commissioner v
<br />I •rtiun County Park Commission, 89 NJ Super
<br />:n2. 214 A2d 446. -
<br />18. Limit Island Water Supply Co, v Brook-
<br />166 US 68S, 41 Led 1165, 17 S Ct 711,
<br />Power Co. v Los An=les (CA9 Cal)
<br />N 1 F 784. cert den 262 US 751, 67 L ed
<br />11. 4.1 S Ct 700. Re Brooklyn. 143 NY 596,
<br />t►t NE 983, affd Lone{ Island Water Supply
<br />t v Brooklyn, 166 US 685, 41 L cd 1165,
<br />17 S Ct 718; State ex rel. Washington Water
<br />Power Co. r Superior Court for Grant
<br />County. 8 Wash 2d 122, 1 It P2d 577.
<br />Annotntion: 171 ALR 1370 et seq.
<br />19. Ft. Worth lmprov. Dist. v Ft. Worth,
<br />106 Tex 148. 158 S%V 16.1.
<br />20. United States t- Tiffin (CC Ohio) 190
<br />F 279; United States v Certain Land (CC
<br />N10 165 F 783.
<br />Annotation: 91 L cd 234.
<br />1. Re Certain Land in Lawrence (DC Mau)
<br />119 F 453.
<br />Annotation: 91 L ed 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 />3. United States v 4450.72 Acres of Land
<br />(DC Minn) 27 F Supp 167. s I'd Minnesota
<br />v United States (CA8) 125 F2d 636.
<br />Annotation: 91 L ed 234.
<br />747
<br />
|