Kanakanui

Kanakanui v. United States

Good Law
157 C.C.A. 273·244 F. 923·1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2069
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 6, 1917No. 2935California660 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Giebert, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

[1,2] The only limitation upon the power of the United States to exercise the right of eminent domain is that just compensation shall be made for property taken. Just compensation means the full equivalent for the property taken. Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 326 , 13 Sup. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463 . By tire terms of the judgment of condemnation as it is here pleaded, and by the rule sustained by the weight of authority, there was no taking of the property which was sought to be condemned. Lewis on Eminent Domain, (3d Ed.) § 655. The United States had the right to and did abandon the proceeding. The complaint in the present action clearly shows that the plaintiffs suffered substantial damage by reason of the action of the defendant, and it must be conceded that the statute of Hawaii is just and equitable, in that it permits recovery for such damages.

[3] The question here, however, is whether the United States has subjected itself to liability under that statute. Congress might have-enacted that the condemnation suit be conducted according to common law, or by a procedure wholly irrespective of that of the territory…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.