Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractappealimplied contract

Related Cases

People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal.4th 1090, 929 P.2d 596, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277, 65 USLW 2567, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 724, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1023
View Case »
Wilson v. Handley, 97 Cal.App.4th 1301, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 263, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3697, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4659
View Case »
Associated Press v. International News Service, 245 F. 244, 2 A.L.R. 317, 157 C.C.A. 436
View Case »
West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 6 How. 507, 1848 WL 6456, 12 L.Ed. 535
View Case »
Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 667, 703 N.W.2d 58
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. U.S., 260 U.S. 327, 43 S.Ct. 135, 67 L.Ed. 287

Facts

The Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company claimed that the United States had taken an interest in their land on Gerrish Island, which is valuable for summer resort use. Previous claims regarding the same land had been denied, but the company argued that subsequent actions by the government, including the installation of heavy coast defense guns and the establishment of a fire control station, constituted a taking. The government had fired guns over the claimants' land, which led to a loss of business due to public fear.

It is alleged that after dismounting the old guns for the purpose of sending them to France during the late war, the United States has set up heavy coast defence guns with the intention of firing them over the claimants' land and without the intent or ability to fire them except over that land.

Issue

Did the actions of the United States, including the installation of guns and firing them over the claimants' land, constitute a taking of property that would require compensation?

The question therefore is not what inferences should be drawn from the facts that may be proved but whether the allegations it proved would require or at least warrant a different finding from those previously reached.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a taking occurs when the government imposes a servitude on private property, depriving the owner of its profitable use, and that such a taking may give rise to an implied contract for compensation.

If the Government had installed its battery, not simply as a means of defence in war, but with the purpose and effect of subordinating the strip of land between the battery and the sea to the right and privilege of the Government to fire projectiles directly across it for the purpose of practice or otherwise, whenever it saw fit, in time of peace, with the result of depriving the owner of its profitable use, the imposition of such a servitude would constitute an appropriation of property for which compensation should be made.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the allegations in the petition warranted a different finding from previous cases. It noted that the establishment of a fire control station and the intent to fire guns over the claimants' land could indicate a taking. The court emphasized that the cumulative effect of the government's actions, including the firing of guns and the establishment of a control station, could support a finding of an appropriation of property.

The establishment of a fire control is an indication of an abiding purpose. The fact that the evidence was not sufficient in 1905 does not show that it may not be sufficient in 1922.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Claims, allowing the claim to proceed based on the allegations of a taking by the United States.

Judgment reversed.

Who won?

Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the allegations in their petition could support a claim of taking, warranting further examination.

The court found that the cumulative effect of later acts added to those that have been held not enough to establish a taking leads to a different result.

You must be