*2 Aсting Atty. Williams, Nation will Asst. receive J. Edward 1342). (sec. quota Gen., Roger Marquis, allotment P. B. Edmund Washing approved by Clark, Justice, Attys., Dept. a referendum 1343). Atty., (sec. ton, C., Copple, farmers The total D. P. U. William S. apportioned by states, counties, Phoenix, Ariz., appellant. for finally among farms, based individual Cook, McKesson, Renaud, J. Gordon produсtion Miller, Ariz., Phoenix, appel- Cook & for (sec. aforementioned units lee. 1344).” BROWNING, Before MERRILL and Judges, FOLEY, quota Circuit Under the Act the allotment or District Judge. apportionment particular tract of and, except attaches that land Judge. MERRILL, Circuit circumstances, unusual cannot be trans- appeal judgment awarding By is frоm from it. ferred U.S.C. 1378 § compensation (a),1 for of land severance provides part: 1378(a) placed § U.S.C. shall in an allot- nent domain any provision “Notwithstanding pool ment and shall be available chapter, providing of this the allotment determined for other allotments displaced. any commodity any land from farms оwned the owner so displaced Upon county application which the owner is because of commit- to the acquisition any purpose, tee, years of the land for the date within three after displacement, years other than for the three continued any section, crops, by Federal, State, of allotted after enactment this agency having period longer, or other emi- so whichever owner proper method provided the land is with its view for where land is evaluating the interest owner condemnation. testimony presented may, the Government also farm condemned conditions, specified the allot- effect transfer allotment enhanced the value to other lands. $413,000, and that the sum than At the trial there was more *3 lands without fair for the testimony spread of the the usual between $452,000. the allotment was therefore experts of own- and those the Government 2 jury the Court instructed The District of land as enhanced er as to thе value the compensa- by fair that order determine witness A Government allotment. they the fair property tion should first determine allotment at with its valued allot- of land with the $865,000. market value An the owner fixed second, and, included; $1,050,000 determine In accordance ment the value at something displaced less to have es- defendant is entitled is shall he entitled by him received if he owned than defendant would have tablished for other farms comparable voluntarily farm with the al- had sold the allotments which are with willing buyer. farms in cotton allotment to a lotments determined for other except cotton allotment cannot be area are similar Because a the same which commodity, separate past from the farm to of the sold or traded for the land, labor, attached, which it is there is no available into consideration the you produc- place equipment enable a available for the direct evidence to We, right. сommodity, crop-rotation prac- on the Section 1378 tion tices, physical therefore, other evidence and other have received and the soil value, example, affecting production bearing upon such factors persons professing commodity.” opinions have knowledge speсial of the economics given farming, of sales of farms The instruction over the Govern- cotton evidence objection and of farms with- ment’s was as follows: with cotton allotments preponderance allotments, out evidence of leases “If the of the evidence cotton governmental policy farms, which and a considerable shows that the of cotton amount of right general regarding described, is, I have that to a information You should enhanced the value of cotton. Valley 1959, weigh July 1, evidence to the Farm on and consider this Citrus the what, give jury your ability in its should effect thereto and determine best if monetary anything, оf fair the fair determination market value. was right However, July 1, it in compensated must be borne mind on the Section granted by law defendant is entitled to be which defendant was when only from him for that which was taken its farm was condemned. weigh part your duty by It to consider and the Government. a It is governmental policy respecting amount cotton al- and determine the all the evidence justly compensate lotments, expressed the de- as which will Section that, taken, Agricultural Adjustment Act, in ac- fendant for the It farm is the owner cordance with these instructions. my if a cotton ap- personal years three reasonable has a within advice most problem proach a solution of this re-establish and use the acquired agree upon you the fair mar- on other farms to be and owned first to July owner, subject Valley by displaced Farm on ket value of Citrus average being county sold allocations of the coun- if it were then willing buyer, ty by willing or counties in which the new fаrm or a seller to a information af- farms are located. This sometimes both of whom had all the during fecting property which been referred to as the the value of the trial Having right. you now have. determined Section 1378 you you value, preponderance con- If then should find a monetary value, agree upon the evidence that cotton allotment sider and preponderance rights any, retained not tak- if established a defendant and Government, evidence, en with of the Section 1378 accordance defendant, pecuniary by the and subtract Section had a value to retained defendant, market value of insofar from the fair follows that such value property. The difference as the cotton allotment the mar- affected defendant’s July your Valley Farm the amount of award as ket value of Citrus on should be just compensation just compensation the defendant.” any, allot- monetary value, nature of the sеction This view the very owner; and, basis for the al- overlooks retained pro- finally, its land’s It is based the latter lotment. subtract history. more than a license It is land. To aid in ductive market carrying very jury produce. sense it is a real out this instruction productive verdict, proven bring special measure the land’s in a directed disclosing of value. their on all determinations pertinent items of value. proof with record is crowded including fixed allotment, problems expenses the converting $1,025,000. It found raw desert there in the was no value the owner normally this area farm. raw land in right, and that owner leached. too It is far alkaline. to fair in the entitled water; time, requires but full amount of the land’s value. itself, quality with water *4 questions There two basic before are alkalinity, respect affects the suc- to its (1) this degree Were lower court’s court: the leaching to the cess of the (2) instructions Was erroneous? the accomplished. water The it can be which by supported verdict evidence? the affects the the area level in immediate turn, which, pumping di- bears cost of rectly upon in The Government contends the in prospects of the the economic argument structions erroneous. were Its money Clearly, time and farm. it takes logically appealing and, face, upon its many and favorable characteristics deceptively simple persuasive. It upon create land which cotton sorts to contended that the court has awarded profitably produced. can compensation for more than Govern the from A allotment severed by took; ment retains law the owner longer repre- farm which has earned it land,
the allotment severed from the taken proven productive sents ability merit and the yet, here, has received produce profitably. to at- When appurtenance for it as an land. tached new land it does not automati- The Government reasons can “the farmer cally that land to extent of enhance buy equivalent land with the award for of the cotton-land characteris- by because, nonenhanced value defini tics of the land from which it was sev- tion, Upon pur it would be the same. represents ered. land it Attached new by displaced farmer, chase thе land aspect. license-to-produce its It immediately assumes the enhanced value proves nothing productive as to abil- ability, because of his under section ity new land did not to transfer the allotment. same history upon which the allot- create buy cheaper would if be true he had to ment was founded. bring up land capability, using it money the excess from the award.” Government’s formula for evalua- require jury pretend Further, tion argues, would the Government productive solution cotton land noncotton of the District Court demon- jury inadequacy It land. would ques- strated invite the attrib- its to reach the allotment, compensation by tion ute to the enhance- of fair retained verdict’s give by any land values earned from failure to at all to consideration an which was severed—characteristics item of obvious value. which land and which cannot retains In our the Government errs and transferred be severed the owner viewing exclusively in the allotment as a land. Government bestowed will au- tomatically any attaching enhance the value lands to lands Thus allotment precise- which it history attaches in an amount which created the which it ly equal to its enhancement of lands was founded a different creature from which it was severed. that same allotment transferred to new asked, assuming productive it ment’s to whose lands as proves buy undeveloped $1,000,000 to to he had nothing. of a license The value comparable areas, little, any, “You would lands has on new soul-searching give long, deep, look be- relationship to the taken to the value anything you pay would this cotton-producing fore even characteris- land of its you, history. fairness? wouldn’t in all its as tics demonstrated long, fairness, would A. In all I take between The difference searching full look so could make I produce on new section 1378 get most out of it. this allotment and taken land lands and the value Q. you pay $50,000 Before еven cotton-producing is not characteristics give you it a lot of consid- would want to damages prop- regarded as long eration and take a look at the situa- erty or as a condemnation caused sir, tion, you? Yes, wouldn’t A. moving property site to from one cost of would.” contends. as Government аnother between difference Rather way question could another Phrased separated from section light be said to be this: potential profit in Arizona to be made regard- the land is to be when attached to production, it worth what would be part ed as a of the value owner, million dol- to this armed with a Govеrnment. fund, cash, lars in to be to use that able together allotment, to continue with the require proper, then, to It was farming? jury, effect, in cotton to fix *5 has said that the circumstances he right separately. in find no error We investing off in would be as well other given. instructions as engaging in labors. other fields contends that The Government not does so our the record jury’s support there is no evidence right conclusively in this establish value finding right of no that the value. certainty profit in of ultimate of noncotton land as elim- conversion right, record The value of that as the upon the all reasonable difference inate question. many abundantly shows, depend on will availability of cotton land factors: allotment; enjoying presently an not availability Judgment affirmed. non-cotton of convertible land; required to con- cost and time Judge FOLEY, Jr., District ROGER D. profitable production of such vert land to result). (concurring in the cotton. majority a holds that whether Certainly it a licensе to is clear that in condemna- cotton allotment not taken produce in accordance with this allotment depends upon of facts tion has value of can no unless and until cotton value here, majority, finds that each case. The profitably produced; and until cotton be jury’s supports verdict finding the evidence profitably produced can full ex- jury’s $1,025,000.00 of allotment, potential tent of the full cotton allotment the 550-acre not the allotment is realized. valueless. Furthermore, personal If cannot it. does the owner. He sell he from the it seems clear evidence While it, gone. not it is choose to use growing in this case question, years upon land in several approach question One enhanced, land was the value jury, then, a was to ascertain what will- question not a cotton allot- or whether ing many buyer, faced with com- these has from land ment considered problems, plex pay would now a problem. presents How- a difficult in the future forth, ever, set for the reasons hereafter as now The Govern- were available. need, theory not no decide whether Government’s shocks see one’s severance, justice. unjust after sense of An result can value. result. If never be the the enhance- fai’m, resulting in majority quotes from the Govern- production, from its cotton is not to be brief, part, in ment’s follows: “ arriving considered in at fair market prevent ‘In order the “market- value, required then the supplies of excessive of cotton” fix the land value of different foreign commerce interstate Appellee land taken. entitled receive orderly and to “maintain an flow just compensation for at the its land time adequate supply in such taking, not land or the same land sys- commerce,” the cotton allotment production. without its sec. tem was established. 7 U.S.C. Secretary it, 1341. Under States, In Iriarte United v. 157 F.2d Agriculture determines, upon the ba- 105, Cir., page 167 A.L.R. supply sis of estimаted and demand stated, part: the Court particular year, for a there whether increment “[A]n added val- quota will be of cotton for that governmental policy ue of land year and, so, if what amount of acre- is not to be deducted from fair age in Nation will al- receive an market of land condemned ” 1342).’ (sec. lotment order to arrive at amount Congress did wish the just compensation which must be condemnation to either diminish * * * paid therefor. For instance total or to the farm- allotted force obviously impossible it would as a er sults, Congress out To business. avoid these re- practical matter to deduct remedy providеd set agricultural forth in Section United Title land all elements its value due States Code. agricultural policy. the Government’s land. All that is not production, should not But best use to which termining indicates increased value to the taken includes duction. There is cotton in the I find severed, just compensation Appellee from its language proven history farming intent of future proven fair market mere reliable evidence is the on the history license to Congress Section its of cotton factor highest land, of cotton that the all that result- in de- could land. here pro- tory. both a negotiating consider the land’s *6 icy [*] be evidence to indicate that the ex- market istence According into consideration gain is er “But before [*] can be considered as willing [*] the test for a sale of to the evidence in this willing buyer any governmental pol- policy property, cotton-producing by willing buy- value.” seller Appellee’s seller affecting whose bar- there must be taken would, case, his- put. my view, no dеduction of the value justification implying is no There from the land Congressional should jury, have been intent considered but would the land not reverse because the juxy shall not be in a reached considered condemnation results. simply properly fixed case the allotment is the value of the land because sev- taking. ered at the time of should be affirmed.