*1 prior assignment surety. had notice of the entitled to retain the federal rule, Under it without notice of the assigned money which received Corcoran, surety. prior assignment Judson Co., 264 Salem Trust Co. How. cf. v. Manufacturers’ here, Martin case does not control 182, 192-193. U. S. took with notice assignee that case subsequent since obviously assignment part an earlier and as were sufficient facts, fraudulent These scheme. subsequent assignee relin require that case to funds, lacking here. Hence quish the transferred unnecessary whether, Appeals consider as the Court rights alleged held, standing the trustee is without to assert of the surety.
Affirmed. Mr. Black dissents. Justice CORP.
UNITED GENERAL MOTORS STATES v. January Argued 8, 1945. 16, 17, No. 76. November 1944. Decided *2 Wilkinson, Mr. Vernon L. with whom Solicitor General Fahy, Littell, Assistant Attorney General and Miss Wilma C. were on Martin brief, United States.
Mr. John Thomas Smith for respondent. Philip Mr. S. Ehrlich filed a brief on behalf of the Paper Co., Zellerbach curiae, amicus supporting re- spondent. delivered the opinion Justice Roberts
Mr. Court.
This
impression
case is one of first
in this
pre-
court.
It
a
which
question
sents
on
the decisions of federal courts
The problem
in conflict.1
involved
the ascertain-
just compensation
ment of
required
by the Fifth
Constitution,
Amendment
where,
the exercise of
1 Compare
below,
with the decision
Bros.
portion term long lease. holds under Act of II Powers 201 Tit. of the Second War
Section Secretary 1942,2 part, that provides, March instituted, any court cause to be may proceedings War real jurisdiction, having acquire, condemnation, therein thereof, or temporary use other property, war or necessary military be other shall deemed that, on or after further provides The Act purposes. possession immediate petition, the condemnation filing of used, may occupied, be improved. warehouse one-story leased 1928 the *3 for the years, twenty of in for a term
building Chicago fitted the and parts, of storage and automobile distribution In 1942 the States became premises for use. this building. in floor the space of the portion subtenants of respondent of some possession There remained the the Secretary of 93,000 of 1942 the square spring feet. the Attorney institute requested proceed War the General to ings remaining for condemnation of the of the ending a term Pursuant space for June 1943. filed request, 8, 1942, petition the United June condemning tempo the such District Court for an order im of right and the the rary granting use use, military possession, improvement and for mediate de entered an order day On the same the court purposes. ending for a term June property condemned claring im and of 30, 1943, granting the United States respond The was on the possession. order served mediate removing its began personal thereafter it shortly ent and dismantling demolishing from the area and gov available fixtures, space so that the was bins and use 19. by ernment June
2 199, 176, 177, 50 App. 56 Stat. S. C. 632. c. U. § of compensation the ascertainment trial for
At the Government, for the attorney respondent, due- the. taking, authority called a real after proving his that the fair rental gave opinion expert estate who year per square 35 cents space per was foot. value of The rested. Government then witnesses who testified expert called respondent
The was opinion, the fair rental value 43 cents that, in their foot, permitted testify witness was and a per square respondent to its landlord had varied paid the rent- 41.9 years 1942, inclusive, 1940 to from to 43.24 during the cents. prove then offered to various items
The consisted, of the These contents. cost removal caused work, alia, engaged inter employes of salaries employes out of work the re- put due the protection wages janitors and watchmen moval, moving, the cost building during shipping of the points, to other the contents employes required whose time was to executives moving property, freight with connection storage space for moved charges, articles rental haulage destroyed and the es- oirt, equipment of the bin the value equipment the installation of fixed original cost of timated dismantling result of the of the area. completely lost as a objection jury The sustained the offer. court *4 compensation lump- sum at a rate of approxi- awarded square cents for mately per year.3 foot the term of one verdicts, court, the the judgment entered on on had been After opened judgment permitted motion, the Government’s petition condemnation to describe the to amend its for years 30, expiring 1943, for . . . taken as "a term June re yearly' periods at newable for additional thereafter ... the election Secretary specified War,” of on notice of so to renew. of intent judgment awarding new The then entered a the amount of the court retaining jurisdiction for the to verdict ascertain.- The respondent appealed to the Circuit Court of Ap peals, assigning as error the refusal of its offer proof. That court might have sustained the District Court’s ruling ground on the that respondent was not entitled to prove certain of the expenditures- in question and losses independent of damages items additional to the value of . interest taken condemnation court, however, The considering substance rather than 2 to form, a vote of judgment, reversed the holding that items of actual loss which were the direct and necessary result of respond ent’s exclusion from the leased area might proved, not as independent-items but as to in ar elements be considered riving at the sum just compensation which would be interest which the The cause Government condemned. remanded ruling was for trial accordance with the Circuit think Appeals. Court We we should review it is further ruling inasmuch as fundamental conduct of the court of the case. The correctness of the decision meaning of the consti depends upon scope below be taken private property “nor provision: tutional shall condi use, just compensation,” without public sovereign power unrestrained tions the otherwise it compensation, whatever needs. expropriate, to without “just “taken” and “property,” critical terms first that the was used It is conceivable compensation.” the physical thing sense of vulgar and untechnical its rights recognized the citizen exercises to which respect with hand, may employed have been the other law. On damage property, any, if ment further occupancy. tear, beyond ordinary due to the Government’s wear and question before these facts alter us. do not understand that We only original taking presented involves for one The case now involving year. If, remand, the case be treated as the Govern- on option renewal, the additional value of that ment’s interest must express opinion be included in the awarded. We no power service, the Government’s to condemn such as the fur- nishing light. of heat and *5 rights in- group denote the to. sense accurate
in a more as the physical thing, relation citizen's in the hering fact, point of it. dispose use right possess, to the latter.4 When has been phrase given construction of eminent domain power sovereign exercises thing ques- the physical in relation to itself substitutes to that bore the relation formerly him who place of tion words, In other ownership. we denominate thing, which “interest” the individual's lawyers term what it deals with may comprise the That interest question. thing in the term is “a fee the shorthand for which rights group an “estate or known as the interest may be or it simple” The consti- instance. present in the as years,” tenancy interest the every sort of addressed provision tutional may possess. citizen would seem to term “taken” meaning, primary
In its might for it well destruction, than something more signify destroys. he But take what not that one does claimed not so has been narrow. phrase the construction deprivation of the former have held The courts or interest to the accretion of than the rather owner taking. Governmental action sovereign constitutes held, of title or has been acquisition short complete deprive the owner of all are so if effects its subject matter, in the to amount to of his or most taking.5 that whether the sovereign to be observed sub- it is But occupant in place owner, of the former itself stitutes rights subject existing matter, destroys all his solely concerns itself “prop- Fifth Amendment with the relation erty,” e., physi- i. with the owner's as such to the with other collateral interests which thing cal ownership. be incident to his 4Lewis, Domain, Ed., Eminent 64. 3d §§ Welch, See, g., e. v. 217 U. S. Richards States Washington Co., 546. Terminal 233 U. S. *6 light it principles
In the of these been has held that the to be compensation is the paid value of the interest taken. Only in the sense that he is to receive such value it true that the must put good owner be as position pecuniarily ifas his not been In property had taken. the ordinary case, for standard, called, want of a better market value, so criterion of that value. In is the some cases this criterion cannot used either be because the condemned has because, no market value or the circumstances, market an inappropriate furnishes measure of actual value value. trial parties of this case the presented evidence market value of the of bare occupancy of the floor space respondent’s for the term taken. The offer to prove ad- for ditional items claimed compensation was The award overruled. was therefore limited to the mar- of the ket value a vacant building. The is whether other question element of value inhered in the interest taken. sovereign ordinarily
The takes the fee. The rule in such case is for that in- interest does not loss of profits, expense clude future moving remov- personal able fixtures and property from premises, good-will loss of which inheres in land, the location of the like consequential or other losses which would ensue the property of the to someone sovereign. sale other than the all these doubt elements would No considered be in determining whether, owner and at what price, sell. doubt, therefore, No if the owner is be to made whole sovereign’s consequent the loss on the seizure of prop- his erty, these properly should elements considered. But generally the courts have held that they are not to be part reckoned fee taken by the Government.6 We are to be as departing 6 States, States, Bothwell v. United Mitchell v. United 231; 254 U. S. Corp. Mullen Benevolent 89; U. S. U. S. V, Orgel, Domain, Chap. pp. 220-252. Valuation under Eminent they down, from the rule have laid which we think sound. where state Even constitutions command that compensa- tion be made for “taken damaged” public use, many do, it generally has been held that that which damaged is taken or is the group' rights which the so- called owner exercises his dominion of the physical thing, damage and that rights to those of ownership does not include losses to his business or other consequential damage.7 question posed this case is, then shall a different
measure of apply where that which is taken right is a temporary occupancy of a building equipped the business, condemnee’s filled with his commodities, presumably to be reoccupied and used, as before, to the end of the lease term on the termination of the Govern- ment’s use? The to occupy, for a a day, month, a year, or a in series of and of years, itself and without refer- use, needs, ence to the actual or collateral arrangements of occupier, the has a value. The value of that interest affected, course, by the kind of building to be occupied, its location, by susceptibility its to various uses, by its conveniences, reverse, or the many other factors go to the value of the occupancy. which set These were in fixing into the taken consideration market value of the if that taken, space were bare space floor and in the' rent. market for said, has been the
While, power Government’s to take and to demand period, possession for a short of the space equipment taken freed of all or personal property therein, denied, cannot questions three emerge which are not. presented when what is taken is fee a in land. They long-term are: 1. Is the rental value the sole measure the value of such short-term occupancy carved out of long term? 2. If the taking necessitates the removal
7 Orgel, op. cit., p. 253. in in personal property conformity stored to the normal use of such building, necessary a ex- pense removal to be considered computing com- pensation? 3. If a tenant’s equipment fixtures are taken or or reduced in destroyed, value, Govern- action, ment’s must it compensate for the value thus destroyed paying addition to the rental value of occupancy?
1. If the only Government need ren pay long-term tal of empty building temporary talcing for a from the long-term way tenant a will have been found to defeat the Fifth just Amendment’s mandate for all except condemnations contemplated those public use requires taking of the fee simple title. may case where private the Government need prop erty, it can devise its condemnation as to specify so a term of day, month, year, or a with optional contingent re newal for indefinite periods, and with the certainty that it pay only long-term need rental owner rate of an unoccupied building for the short term if period, prem already or, not, ises are under lease if then a market rental minimum term it whatever choose select, fixed *8 according arriving to the usual modes of at rental rates. this, though may And the be damaged by owner the ouster ten, score, perhaps a or a hundred times the amount found him “fair rental In due value.” the present case the re offered to that the spondent prove actual expense of mov exceeded ing property $46,000, its and the loss due to and removal of fixtures and destruction fixed equipment $31,000, addition to its continuing éxceeded liability year of approximately rent pay $40,000; whereas $38,597.86. If the award was such a result be sustained limit can see no to utilization we of such a device; and, if , none, there the is Amendment’s guaranty not becomes just compensation for one of what is taken, but an instru ment of confiscation fictionalizing “just compensation” idea of pep- law a common the concept as such
into some re- one of “value the later or law of in the seizin percorn If the value consideration. of contractual in that ceived” confined, as matter is present case like the in a to be paid space, the owner long-term rental bare to the law, in his rights property, in his secure, either will not be it, as a substitute when just the use and benefit- of all. Here it for takes Government a short time was taken. The warehouse for of a use Motors factory. General might have been property Or modest or home. store Whatever plants. Or several has take. may the citizen that is, the fee, lease, the property, it takes When terminating altogether may interest, his own, he whatever it must him for pay law established what under the must and he stand whatever more; indirect taken, not injuries properly comprehended within or remote damage” “consequential meaning conception in such cases. has been defined Even so the consequences harsh. For remedy may often are these whatever lies exist Congress. with altogether
It another matter when the Government interest, does his not take entire but form of its bits, it proceeding chops into of which it takes only what minute, however few or him wants, holding and leaves remainder, altogether then be useless to pay than the him, refusing to more “market rental value” so cut chips for the use of off. This is neither the “just compensation” the Fifth “taking” nor Amend- an contemplates. ment value such is to ascertained, treating not what is taken as empty what long term, to be leased for a but would be warehouse on a rental value of such lease the market occupier. The case temporary tenant long-term ruling we do principle. retried on this so should be *9 not may be long-term rental shown suggest that the value
383 market bearing on the rental value of the temporary occupancy may taken. It be evidence of the value of what but it is not criterion of value such a case as this.
2. which Some the elements would certainly and directly affect market price agreed upon by a tenant in such extraordinary a sublessee and and unusual moving transaction would be reasonable cost out the preparing and space stored labor, the subtenant. That cost would include materials, And it transportation. might include the storage also goods against sale or the their their cost of return to the premises. items proved, leased Such be as inde- damage but items of to aid in the determination pendent what price would the usual —the market — be asked for such paid temporary occupancy would then in use under a long-term lease. re- proof offered detailed of amounts spondent actually and necessarily these paid purposes. We think that have been received for purpose should proof and with limitation indicated.8 Proof of costs such as affecting distinguished market value to be from proof of value respondent, good-will the value of peculiar or of injury to the of the respondent business which, case, this in the a fee, case of the condemnation must be ex- reckoning. from cluded permanent
3. For
equipment
fixtures
destroyed or
depreciated
taking,
value
is en-
An
compensation.
owner's rights
titled
these are no
(Mass.) 425;
Patterson v.
23 Pick.
Boston,
Getz v.
Philadelphia
&
547; Philadelphia
Reading
Co.,
Reading
105 Pa.
R.
R. Co. v.
Getz,
&
214,
356;
Pa.
Printing
6 A.
Co. Pittsburgh,
McMillin
& C. W. R.
504,
1091;
Co.,
216 Pa.
65 A.
v. Co.
63 Wash.
Co.,
North Coast R.
Kraft
Laboratory
P.
Co. v. Supply
National
&
384 meaning the Fifth Amendment within the of less'property in land and the thereon erected. his-rights than structures they taken it matters whether were over And not. said, destroyed, since, as has been destruc- or taking.9 to This true- whether is tion is tantamount such as be- would be considered equipment fixtures and trade fixures.11 as a tenant's and-vendee,10 or tween vendor occupancy whose is them, the tenant respect In of destruction, damage or de- entitled to distinct they in And since value.12 preciation compensation should be of from such in part of to the value awarded not but addition of. occupancy as such. as modi- Appeals, of judgment of Circuit Court opinion, this
fied
Affirmed. and Justice, The Chief Frankfurter Mr. Justice Murphy in the consideration part no took Mr. Justice decision of this case. concurring part.
Mr. Justice Douglas, I is entitled to agree depreci- destroyed or permanent equipment fixtures that, I re- agree the taking. ated value likewise 9Supra, 5. Note 10 York, 34, New 213 Y. 106 E. 758. Jackson v. N. N. City Rep. 488, 122 Y. York, 66 Misc. N. S. 11 Matter New of of 141; Wilcox, App. 197, 151 Y. Bales v.
321; Div. N. S. Matter 165 of 771, 1009; Valley Co., P. R. 92 Kan. 141 Matter Midland Wichita City City York, 353; Y. App. 27, 219 Div. N. Matter New 219 S. Widening York, 377; In re Gratiot 236, 176 New 256 N. Y. E.N. of Ave., Atlanta, 92, 755; Pause v. 98 Ga. 294 Mich. 293 N. W. cf. E. 489. S. 26 City Seagren, 333; 2d Matter New United States 50 F. v. Louis, York, 908; I. App. 865; St. Louis v. St. M. Div. 103 N. Y. S. 750; People Co., Co., 694, 182 Ganahl Lumber & S. R. 266 Mo. W. S. P. 11. 501, 75 10 Cal. 2d 2d cited Note cases spondent is entitled to a further increase its award. granted The award is less the rental than which it is un der obligation a continuing pay lessor. The United occupying 40$ the premises States about paying is. a square foot while respondent 42$ to pay continues landlord. these special it is difficult circumstances *11 to see how a lessee just compensation receives that to which he is entitled unless the United pays States the full It rental. would indeed be a novel rule of law which’al lowed to a person oust portion from a leasehold, occupy his the premises, but pay only a part leaving rent, the balance to him paid who though ousted holds’ the balance of the But I term. do not we believe should allow the cost of removing personal from premises to be reflected the award. If were a fee this interest which being was condemned, we such expenses would exclude all from the award. Con injuries sequential resulting losses or from the taking are not Fifth compensable under Amendment. Mitchell Miller, v. United 267 U. S. States v. Powelson, 369, 376; S. United States v. U. 319 U. S. 266, 281-283. It takes an Act of to Congress make them should rule. If so. We adhere that we allow conse to be I quential damages here, shown do see how we offer 10-year can such an when proof a lease, refuse lease, 99-year or a fee condemned. If cost of moving to market I price case, is relevant one cannot if type irrelevant And say other. one of con damage is relevant market I sequential price, do not why type may not be. If we see allow the almost present case, proof offer of result will be to let . damages in guise. under new If consequential we take hard step' we demonstrate that cases do indeed make give the Constitution interpretation bad law. We promises which swollen verdicts no Act of Congress can cure. joins opinion.
Mk. in this Justice Black