Miller v. United States

The United States Government, through its Secretary of the Interior, seeks by action in eminent domain to acquire several parcels of land for the relocation of the main line of the Central Pacific Railway Company between Redding and Delta, in Shasta County, California. Such relocation of the railway is made necessary through the construction of the Shasta Dam, a feature of the so-called Central Valley Project.

The several Acts of Congress relative to the project as cited and epitomized in the margin 1 are intended as a part of the statement of fact upon which this opinion is based.

The record does not disclose the date of filing the original complaint herein, but the amended complaint was filed December 14, 1938. On the same day a declaration of taking in accordance with the Act of Congress (40 U.S.C.A. § 258a) was filed, and a judgment upon said declaration of taking *77 was made and entered in the District Court.

Following the filing of the declaration of taking and the entry of the judgment based thereon, the Government took possession of the properties in question. Issues as to the value of the lands taken and the damages suffered by reason of the taking were the subjects…

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority opinion wherein it holds that the judgment in favor of the Government against three of the landowners for $650, being the amount deposited in court over and above the jury’s award, must be vacated. Los Angeles, etc., Ry. Co. v. Rumpp, 104 Cal. 20, 25 , 37 P. 859 . The District Court should be affirmed on all other points. The majority opinion labors to make out that the case of Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 , 13 S.Ct. 361 , 37 L.Ed. 170 , relied upon by appellee, does not sustain the Government’s position. To avoid the force and effect of this case the main opinion asserts that the Act there involved definitely described the lands to be taken but that in the instant case the lands to be acquired were neither fixed nor defined.

The opinion in the Shoemaker case and the statute involved, 26 Stat. 492 , c. 1001, clearly shows that the lands intended to be taken were not definitely fixed other than that the selection of the site for Rock Creek Park should be made within a certain area as located therein by a commission of engineers and citizens. It is doubtful if the lands there to be taken were as…