KEOKUK & HAMILTON BRIDGE COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Company claimed that the United States took its protection pier when federal workers blasting to deepen the Mississippi River channel damaged the structure, and the company rebuilt the bridge at greater expense. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment against the company, holding that incidental damage caused by the United States during authorized navigation improvement work does not constitute a taking requiring compensation, even though similar damage by a private party would constitute a tort.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice HolMes delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant had an authorized bridge across the Mississippi River. with a pivot pier and draw, to permit the passage of vessels. As a necessary incident it maintained what is called a protection pier extending down stream. In consequence of later authorized Constructions it became necessary to deepen the channel on the easterly side of the pier, and the part of this work with which we are concerned was done by the United States. The bed of the stream by the side of the pier was solid rock and into this the United States drilled and blasted it with dynamite. The work was done in the usual way' and with more than ordinary care; but by the action of the water driven upon the pier by the blasts/ and possibly by the concussion of the blasts themselves, portions of the pier fell into the river, and some damage was inflicted. It could have been repaired for $1,000. The Company however rebuilt the bridge to fit it for heavier traffic, and brought this suit‘alleging that the pier was destroyed and in that way taken by the United States.
An appreciable part of the claimant’s argument consists in an attempt to reopen the findings of fact and to maintain that the pier was destroyed, as giving more force to the contention that it was taken.. This, of course, is vain.
Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 116 U. S. 154. Talbert v. United States, 155 U. S. 45. We must assume, as We have stated from the findings of ‘the. Court of Claims, that the pier was not destroyed but simply was damaged in a way that could have been repaired for a moderate sum. However small the damage, it' may be. 'true that deliberate action in some cases might generate the same claim as other forms of deliberate withdrawal of property from the admitted owner. United State's v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 329. But without considering how the line would be drawn, when such action took place in the improvement of navigation, it is enough to say that' thisi is an ordinary case of incidental damage which if inflicted by a private individual might be a tort but which could be nothing else. In such cases there is no remedy against the United States. See Bedford v. United States, 192 U. S. 217, 224,
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1924)…mplation of or reasonably to be anticipated by the Government. If the case were one against a private individual, his liability, if any, would be in tort. There is no remedy in such case against the United States. Keokuk Bridge Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 125. The most that can be said is that there was probably some increased flooding due to the. canal and that a greater injury may have resulted than otherwise would have been the case. But this and all other matters aside, the injury was in its nature…
-
Stilz v. United States, 269 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1925)…hitcomb v. White, 214 U. S. 15, 16; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473, 476. Our consideration of the case is confined to-questions of law. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 116 U. S. 154, 157; Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 125. And the situation is the same as it would be if the facts had been agreed upon by the parties. United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265, 271. As no infringement was found, the facts are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Judgment affirmed.…
-
In re Chicago v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 799 F.2d 317 (7th Cir. 1986)…on that all torts by the government are takings, see Richard A. Epstein, [*326] Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain 35-56 (1985), the Supreme Court has distinguished the two. E.g., Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 125, 43 S.Ct. 37, 67 L.Ed. 165 (1922) (damage to a bridge caused by the government’s blasting is not a taking); YMCA v. United States, 395 U.S. 85, 89 S.Ct. 1511, 23 L.Ed.2d 117 (1969) (damage to a building caused by using it as a military command post…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1917)
- Bedford v. United States, 192 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1904)
- Talbert v. United States, 155 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1894)
- Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 116 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1885)