District of Columbia v. Andrews Paper Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Potomac Electric Power Co. v. United States

    85 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1936)   Cited 23 times
    In Potomac Electric Power Co. v. United States, 66 App.D.C. 77, 85 F.2d 243, 248 (1936) cert. denied, 299 U.S. 565, 57 S.Ct. 27, 81 L.Ed. 416 (1936) three pieces of heavy machinery, one of which was a 35-ton generator set which rested on a concrete foundation specially built for it, were considered personalty since used in the business and not considered improvements to the real estate.

    The permission granted amounted to a mere license, revocable at will, to use the streets and alleys for certain purposes, and the personal property placed therein by defendant remained personalty. Detroit United Ry. v. City of Detroit, 229 U.S. 39, 33 S.Ct. 697, 57 L.Ed. 1056; District of Columbia v. R.P. Andrews Paper Co., 256 U.S. 582, 587, 41 S.Ct. 545, 65 L.Ed. 1103. The impairment of defendant's distribution system was merely incidental to the direct taking involved in the acquisition of its real estate. Northern Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642, 25 L.Ed. 336. There is a clear distinction between the instant case and the cases relied upon by defendant, of which Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 188, 20 L.Ed. 557, and District of Columbia v. Prospect Hill Cemetery, 5 App.D.C. 497, are illustrative.

  2. State of Oklahoma v. Handy

    71 F.2d 697 (10th Cir. 1934)   Cited 4 times

    Nothing passes except by clear language to that effect. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 547, 9 L. Ed. 773; Curtis v. Whitney, 13 Wall. (80 U.S.) 68, 20 L. Ed. 513; Barden v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 154 U.S. 288, 325, 14 S. Ct. 1030, 38 L. Ed. 992; Helena Water Works Co. v. Helena, 195 U.S. 383, 25 S. Ct. 40, 49 L. Ed. 245; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 202 U.S. 453, 469, 26 S. Ct. 660, 50 L. Ed. 1102, 6 Ann. Cas. 253; City of Mitchell v. Dakota Central Tel. Co., 246 U.S. 396, 38 S. Ct. 362, 62 L. Ed. 793; Piedmont Power Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U.S. 193, 40 S. Ct. 453, 64 L. Ed. 855; District of Columbia v. R.P. Andrews Paper Co., 256 U.S. 582, 41 S. Ct. 545, 65 L. Ed. 1103; Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U.S. 315, 53 S. Ct. 177, 77 L. Ed. 331; City of Paragould v. Arkansas Utilities Co. (C.C.A. 8th) 70 F.2d 530; Copeland v. City of Waldport (Or.) 31 P.2d 670. And in harmony with that rule of construction, every doubt or ambiguity in such a franchise or privilege must be resolved in favor of the sovereign and against the donee. If it is susceptible of two interpretations, one extending and the other restricting the grant, the one most favorable to the state or municipality should be adopted. The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51, 75, 18 L. Ed. 137; Slidell v. Grandjean, 111 U.S. 412, 437, 4 S. Ct. 475, 28 L. Ed. 321; Hamilton Gaslight Coke Co. v. City of Hamilton, 146 U.S. 258, 269, 13 S. Ct. 90, 36 L. Ed. 963; Durham Public Service Co. v. City of Durham, 261 U.S. 149, 43 S. Ct. 290, 67 L. Ed. 580. Had it been intended, in granting the franchise, to exclude the sovereign from the privilege of constructing and operating a bridge, or to limit its prerogative wit

  3. City of Paragould v. Arkansas Utilities Co.

    70 F.2d 530 (8th Cir. 1934)   Cited 5 times

    " Madera Waterworks v. Madera, 228 U.S. 454, 456, 33 S. Ct. 571, 572, 57 L. Ed. 915. See, also, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 544-548, 9 L. Ed. 773; Perrine v. Chesapeake Delaware Canal Co., 9 How. 172, 192, 13 L. Ed. 92; Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 202 U.S. 453, 469, 26 S. Ct. 660, 50 L. Ed. 1102, 6 Ann. Cas. 253; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 471, 26 S. Ct. 427, 50 L. Ed. 801; Piedmont Power Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U.S. 193, 194, 40 S. Ct. 453, 64 L. Ed. 855; City of Mitchell v. Dakota Central Telephone Co., 246 U.S. 396, 412, 38 S. Ct. 362, 62 L. Ed. 793; District of Columbia v. R.P. Andrews Paper Co., 256 U.S. 582, 587, 41 S. Ct. 545, 65 L. Ed. 1103; Durham Public Service Co. v. City of Durham, 261 U.S. 149, 152, 43 S. Ct. 290, 67 L. Ed. 580; Fort Smith Light Traction Co. v. Board of Improvement of Paving District, 274 U.S. 387, 389, 390, 47 S. Ct. 595, 71 L. Ed. 1112; Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U.S. 315, 321, 53 S. Ct. 177, 77 L. Ed. 331. The question which confronts us appears to have been answered by the Supreme Court of the United States adversely to the claim of the appellee.

  4. Boston v. A.W. Perry, Inc.

    304 Mass. 18 (Mass. 1939)   Cited 15 times

    Union Institution for Savings v. Boston, 224 Mass. 286, 287. District of Columbia v. R.P. Andrews Paper Co. 256 U.S. 582, 587. See also Opinion of the Justices, 208 Mass. 603, 606.