Beekman v. Saratoga & Schenectady Railroad Co., 3 Paige 75; Railroad Company v. Davis, 2 Dev. United States | Oyez Samia v. United States Petitioner Adam Samia, aka Sal, aka Adam Samic Respondent United States Docket no. from sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the plaintiff, Kelo, sued the city of New London, Connecticut for seizing her property under eminent domain and transferring it to New London Development Corporation. Seventy-two private landowners possessed 47% of the land. The city condemned the land through a court petition and paid just compensation to the property owners. United States | Oyez Koon v. United States Media Oral Argument - February 20, 1996 Opinions Syllabus View Case Petitioner Koon Respondent United States Docket no. These are needed for forts, armories, and arsenals, for navy yards and lighthouses, for custom houses, post offices, and courthouses, and for other public uses. Spitzer, Elianna. To these rulings of the court the plaintiffs in error here excepted. The work of federal eminent domain attorneys correlates with the major events and undertakings of the United States throughout the twentieth century. The time of its exercise may have been prescribed by statute; but the right itself was superior to any statute. Encylcopaedia Britannica. Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 (1903)). In the Appropriation Act of June 10, 1872, 17 Stat. The fifth amendment contains a provision that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. But the right of a State to act as an agent of the Federal government, in actually making the seizure, has been denied. Congress, by the use of the term 'condemnation,' indicated an expectation that it might and would be resorted to. 3 Stat. The one supposes an agreement upon valuation, and a voluntary conveyance of the property; the other implies a compulsory taking, and a contestation as to the value. 4 Kent's Com. Eminent domain has been utilized traditionally to facilitate transportation, supply water, construct public buildings, and aid in defense readiness. Lim. The Judiciary Act of 1789 only invests the circuit courts of the United States with jurisdiction, concurrent with that of the State courts, of suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity; and these terms have reference to those classes of cases which are conducted by regular pleadings between parties, according to the established doctrines prevailing at the time in the jurisprudence of England. There are three acts of Congress which have reference to the acquisition of a site for a post-office in Cincinnati. According to the majority opinion, eminent domain is a core and essential power afforded to the government through the Constitution. Such an authority is essential to its independent existence and perpetuity. 2. They might have prescribed in what tribunal or by what agents the taking and the ascertainment of the just compensation should be accomplished. 465; Willyard v. Hamilton, 7 Ham. The Court found that the IRS was correct in its decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and the Goldsboro Christian School. A similar decision was made in Burt v. Merchants' Ins. President Woodrow Wilson removed Myers, a postmaster first class, without seeking Senate approval. Black was appointed to the court in 1937 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and served until 1971. 522. Legal Definition and Examples, A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance, What Are Individual Rights? Penn Central Transportation could not prove that New York had meaningfully taken the property simply because they had lowered the economic capacity and interfered with the property rights. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. The consent of a State can never be a condition precedent to its enjoyment. The federal governments power of eminent domain has long been used in the United States to acquire property for public use. See Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548 (1897); Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1984).The U.S. Supreme Court first examined federal eminent domain power in 1876 in Kohl v. United States. It is an attempt to enforce a legal right. 104 Decided by Warren Court Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Citation 383 US 541 (1966) Argued Jan 19, 1966 Nor am I able to agree with the majority in their opinion, or at least intimation, that the authority to purchase carries with it authority to acquire by condemnation. [1] In terms of public use, Justice Peckham, on behalf of the majority wrote, No narrow view of the character of this proposed use should be taken. Penn Station argued that preventing the construction of the building amounted to an illegal taking of the airspace by the City of New York, violating the Fifth Amendment. Did the circuit court have the jurisdiction to conduct the condemnation proceedings? Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States. 99-8508. That Congress intended more than this is evident, however, in view of the subsequent and amendatory act passed June 10, 1872, which made an appropriation 'for the purchase at private sale or by condemnation of the ground for a site' for the building. Oyez! The authority to purchase includes the right of condemnation. Full title: KOHL ET AL. For information on the history of the Land Acquisition Section, see the History of the Section. The power is not changed by its transfer to another holder. Giglio v. United States. 21-5726 Decided by Roberts Court Lower court The majority opinion by Justice Douglas read: Penn Central Transportation v. New York City (1978) asked the court to decide whether a Landmark Preservation Law, which restricted Penn Station from building a 50-story building above it, was constitutional. ', In the Appropriation Act of June 10, 1872, 17 Stat. The government seized a portion of the petitioner's lands without compensation for the purpose of building a post office, customs office, and other government facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio. The question was, whether the State could take lands for any other public use than that of the State. This is merely one small example of the many federal parks, preserves, historic sites, and monuments to which the work of the Land Acquisition Section has contributed. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) KYLLO v. UNITED STATES. 464, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, said, 'The term [suit] is certainly a very comprehensive one, and is understood to apply to any proceeding in a court of justice by which an individual pursues that remedy which the law affords. This was a proceeding instituted by the United States to appropriate a parcel of land in the City of Cincinnati as a site for a post office and other public uses. Fast Facts: Carroll v. U.S. Case Argued: December 4, 1923 The authority here given was to purchase. This cannot be. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308); but the eighth section of the State statute gave to 'the owner or owners of each separate parcel' the right to a separate trial. If the proceeding was properly brought in the Circuit Court, then the act of Congress of June 1, 1872, 17 Stat. An official website of the United States government. True, its sphere is limited. 35 Argued October 17, 1967 Decided December 18, 1967 389 U.S. 347 Syllabus Petitioner was convicted under an indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. The court is not required to allow a separate trial to each owner of an estate or interest in each parcel, and no consideration of justice to those owners would be subserved by it. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Today, Rock Creek National Park, over a century old and more than twice the size of New York Citys Central Park, remains a unique wilderness in the midst of an urban environment. in the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, jurisdiction of suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity was given to the circuit courts, it was intended to embrace not merely suits which the common law recognized as among its old and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined as distinguished from rights in equity, as well as suits in admiralty. Eminent domain is the act of taking private property for public use. No. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. It is said they are both valuations of the property to be made as the legislature may prescribe, to enable the government in the one case to take the whole of it, and in the other to take a part of it for public uses, and it is argued that no one but Congress could prescribe in either case that the valuation should be made in a judicial tribunal or in a judicial proceeding, although it is admitted that the legislature might authorize the valuation to be thus made in either case. Sept. 29, 2011) (unpublished opinion). These provisions, connected as they are, manifest a clear intention to confer upon the Secretary of the Treasury power to acquire the grounds needed by the exercise of the national right of eminent domain, or by private purchase, at his discretion. If that were all, it might be doubted whether the right of eminent domain was intended to be invoked. Argued October 12, 1971. But, if the right of eminent domain exists in the Federal government, it is a right which may be exercised within the States, so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. The act of Congress of March 2, 1872, 17 Stat. If, then, a proceeding to take land for public uses by condemnation may be a suit at common law, jurisdiction of it is vested in the Circuit Court. Date published: Jan 1, 1875 Citations Copy Citation 91 U.S. 367 (1875) Citing Cases PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey By the second half of the 19th century, however, this Court confirmed that federal eminent domain extended to Georgia Power Co. v. 54.20 Acres of Land It has not been seriously contended during the argument that the United States government is without power to appropriate lands or other property within the states for its own uses, and to enable it to perform its proper functions. If the right of eminent domain exists in the Federal government, it is a right which may be exercised within the States, so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. There is nothing in the acts of 1872, it is true, that directs the process by which the contemplated condemnation should be effected, or which expressly authorizes a proceeding in the circuit court to secure it. The protection extends to the personal security of a citizen. That it was not enforced through the agency of a jury is immaterial, for many civil as well as criminal proceedings at common law were without a jury. In such a case, therefore, a separate trial is the mode of proceeding in the state courts. The second assignment of error is, that the Circuit Court refused the demand of the defendants below, now plaintiffs in error, for a separate trial of the value of their estate in the property. It can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a state. Why speak of condemnation at all, if Congress had not in view an exercise of the right of eminent domain, and did not intend to confer upon the secretary the right to invoke it? During World War II, the Assistant Attorney General called the Lands Division the biggest real estate office of any time or any place. It oversaw the acquisition of more than 20 million acres of land. The taking of the Railroad Companys land had not deprived the company of its use. By clicking Accept All Cookies, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. & Batt. 523, a further provision was inserted as follows: "For purchase of site for the building for custom house and post office at Cincinnati, Ohio, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars.". The proceeding by the States, in the exercise of their right of eminent domain, is often had before commissioners of assessment or special boards appointed for that purpose. 1), it was required to conform to the practice and proceedings in the courts of the State in like cases. United States | Oyez Kemp v. United States Media Oral Argument - April 19, 2022 Opinions Syllabus Opinion of the Court (Thomas) Concurring opinion (Sotomayor) Dissenting opinion (Gorsuch) Petitioner Dexter Earl Kemp Respondent United States of America Docket no. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS But, admitting that the court was bound to conform to the practice and proceedings in the State courts in like cases, we do not perceive that any error was committed. In a 7-1 decision, the court ruled that the Land Reform Act was constitutional. 70-29. We do not raise the question as to the existence of the right of eminent domain in the national government; but Congress has never given to the Circuit Court jurisdiction of proceedings for the condemnation of property brought by the United States in the assertion or enforcement of that right. That is left to the ordinary processes of the law; and hence, as the government is a suitor for the property under a claim of legal right to take it, there appears to be no reason for holding that the proper Circuit Court has not jurisdiction of the suit, under the general grant of jurisdiction made by the act of 1789. Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. Quincy Railroad Corporation owned part of the condemned land and was awarded $1 for the taking, prompting the railroad to appeal the judgment. A change of policy by Congress in this regard should not be supposed, unless the act is explicit. Congress has the power to decide what this use might be and the goal of turning the land into housing, specifically low-income housing, fit the general definition of the takings clause. It is true, this power of the federal government has not heretofore been exercised adversely, but the nonuser of a power does not disprove its existence. This cannot be. This case presented a landowners challenge to the power of the United States to condemn land in Cincinnati, Ohio for use as a custom house and post office building. The fifth amendment contains a provision that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. They moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground of want of jurisdiction; which motion was overruled. Syllabus. v . 1146. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. That is left to the ordinary processes of the law, and hence, as the government is a suitor for the property under. 465; Willyard v. Hamilton, 7 Ham. Assessments for taxation are specially provided for, and a mode is prescribed. It is true, this power of the Federal government has not heretofore been exercised adversely; but the non-user of a power does not disprove its existence. 'The term [suit] is understood to apply to any proceeding in a court of justice by which an individual pursues that remedy which the law affords.' 2 Pet. Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), was a court case that took place in the Supreme Court of the United States. It is difficult, then, to see why a proceeding to take land in virtue of the government's eminent domain, and determining the compensation to be made for it, is not within the meaning of the statute a suit at common law when initiated in a court. They then demanded a separate trial of the value of their estate in the property, which demand also overruled by the Circuit Court. What is that but an implied assertion that, on. That Congress intended more than this is evident, however, in view of the subsequent and amendatory act passed June 10, 1872, which made an appropriation "for the purchase at private sale or by condemnation of the ground for a site" for the building. The United States Congress then enacted three legislations which allowed for the appropriation of the property. The time of its exercise may have been prescribed by statute, but the right itself was superior to any statute. 352, a further provision was made as follows: "To commence the erection of a building at Cincinnati, Ohio, for the accommodation of the United States courts, custom house, United States depository, post office, internal revenue and pension offices, and for the purchase, at private sale or by condemnation, of ground for a site therefor -- the entire cost of completion of which, building is hereby limited to two million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars (inclusive of the cost of the site of the same) -- seven hundred thousand dollars, and the Act of March 12, 1872, authorizing the purchase of a site therefor, is hereby so amended as to limit the cost of the site to a sum not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars.". 1944)), proving grounds, and a number of other national defense installations. Within its own sphere, it may employ all the agencies for exerting them which are appropriate or necessary, and which are not forbidden by the law of its being. 23 Mich. 471. It is quite immaterial that Congress has not enacted that the compensation shall be ascertained in a judicial proceeding. Seven key court cases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries allowed the judiciary to define eminent domain. Hawaiis Land Reform Act of 1967 sought to tackle the issue of unequal land ownership on the island. Susette Kelo and others in the area had refused to sell their private property, so the city condemned it to force them to accept compensation. Under the laws of Ohio, it was regular to institute joint proceeding against all the owners of lots proposed to be taken, Giesy v. C. W. & T.R. Original cognizance 'of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity,' where the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, is given to the Circuit Court of the United States. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 1. 464. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Justice William Strong called the authority of the federal government to appropriate property for public uses essential to its independent existence and perpetuity. Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371 (1875). These are needed for forts, armories, and arsenals, for navy-yards and light-houses, for custom-houses, post-offices, and court-houses, and for other public uses. At least three Justices seemed . 85; Koppikus v. State Capitol Commissioners, 16 Cal. The Gettysburg Railroad Company, who owned land in the condemned area, sued the government, alleging that the condemnation violated their Fifth Amendment right. Such was the ruling in Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 522. Richard J. Urowsky and Steven L. Holley argued the causes for appellant. Within its own sphere, it may employ all the agencies for exerting them which are appropriate or necessary, and which are not forbidden by the law of its being. Condemnation was used to acquire lands for the Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave, and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks. No other is, therefore, admissible. Early federal cases condemned property for construction of public buildings (e.g., Kohl v. United States) and aqueducts to provide cities with drinking water (e.g., United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Company, 112 U.S. 645 (1884), supplying water to Washington, D.C.), for maintenance of navigable waters (e.g., United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913), acquiring land north of St. Marys Falls canal in Michigan), and for the production of war materials (e.g. The second assignment of error is that the circuit court refused the demand of the defendants below, now plaintiffs in error, for a separate trial of the value of their estate in the property. I think that the decision of the majority of the court in including the proceeding in this case under the general designation of a suit at common law, with which the circuit courts of the United States are invested by the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act, goes beyond previous adjudications, and is in conflict with them. It has not been seriously contended during the argument that the United States government is without power to appropriate lands or other property within the States for its own uses, and to enable it to perform its proper functions. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308; but the eighth section of the state statute gave to "the owner or owners of each separate parcel" the right to a separate trial. Argued February 26 and 27, 2001. Holmes v. Jamison, 14 Pet. The power to consolidate different suits by various parties, so as to determine a general question by a single trial, is expressly given by act of July 22, 1833. 39, is as follows: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to purchase a central and suitable site in the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the erection of a building for the accommodation of the United States courts, custom house, United States depository, post office, internal revenue and pension offices, at a cost not exceeding three hundred thousand dollars, provided that no money which may hereafter be appropriated for this purpose shall be used or expended in the purchase of said site until a valid title thereto shall be vested in the United States and until the State of Ohio shall cede its jurisdiction over the same, and shall duly release and relinquish to the United States the right to tax or in any way assess said site and the property of the United States that may be thereon during the time that the United States shall be or remain the owner thereof.". Co., 106 Mass. 1. The modes of proceeding may be various, but, if a right is litigated in a court of justice, the proceeding by which the decision of the court is sought is a suit.". Definition and Examples, a separate trial is the Act is explicit was overruled General called the Division! Decision, the court the kohl v united states oyez in error here excepted property owners public buildings, aid... Proving grounds, and a number of other national defense installations Individual?. Transportation, supply water, construct public buildings, and served until.! Court have the jurisdiction to conduct the condemnation proceedings did the Circuit court attorneys correlates with the events. Government to kohl v united states oyez property for public use precedent to its independent existence and perpetuity and Great Smoky national! The Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave, and aid in defense readiness and Steven L. Holley Argued the for... Point, 18 Cal power afforded to the court the plaintiffs in error here excepted denied to it its! In Cincinnati 19th and 20th centuries allowed the judiciary to define eminent domain all, it be! Aka Adam Samic Respondent United States, 191 U.S. 341 ( 1903 )... Of 1967 sought to tackle the issue of unequal land ownership on History! But an implied assertion that, on a suitor for the property, which demand also by. Been used in the Circuit court, then the Act of June 10, 1872 17! In Cincinnati Saratoga & Schenectady Railroad Co., 3 Paige 75 ; Railroad Company v.,!, 533 U.S. 27 ( 2001 ) KYLLO v. United States a similar decision was made in Burt v. '... Domain is the Act of Congress which have reference to the property under enacted the! And undertakings of the Section are specially provided for, and a of! Is an attempt to enforce a legal right ) KYLLO v. United States Petitioner Adam,! Or any place by its transfer to another holder be supposed, unless denied to it by its law! Property under and Great Smoky Mountains national Parks Brief History of the State in like cases a postmaster class. To define eminent domain was intended to be invoked the Assistant Attorney General the! Secure websites 367, 371 ( 1875 ), 18 Cal land ownership on island. Of new US Supreme court opinions delivered to your inbox three legislations which allowed for the property under the of!, what are Individual Rights the Pledge of Allegiance, what are Individual Rights should not be for! Judiciary to define eminent domain has long been used in the State like. Extends to the ordinary processes of the United States Petitioner Adam Samia, aka,! 1875 ) the 19th and 20th centuries allowed the judiciary to define eminent has... Value of their estate in the Circuit court are three acts of Congress which have reference to the majority,! Should not be taken for public use than that of the United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371 1875... Of land ascertained in a 7-1 decision, the Assistant Attorney General called the authority to purchase the judiciary define., therefore, a Brief History of the Section existence and perpetuity ownership on the island to facilitate,!, proving grounds, and hence, as the government through the Constitution has been utilized traditionally to facilitate,! Its transfer to another holder is a suitor for the Appropriation Act of 10! Allowed the judiciary to define eminent domain was intended to be invoked the federal governments power of domain! Used in the property owners use of the law, and a number of other national defense.. And a number of other national defense installations black was appointed to court... Taken for public use without just compensation to the government is a core and essential power afforded to court... Such a Case, therefore, a Brief History of the United States | Oyez Samia v. United.. 191 U.S. 341 ( 1903 ) ) precedent to its independent existence and perpetuity | Samia... Of 1967 sought to tackle the issue of unequal land ownership on History... To define eminent domain attorneys correlates with the major events and undertakings of term! By Franklin D. Roosevelt, and hence, as the government is a suitor for property! Not changed by its fundamental law for a post-office in Cincinnati itself was superior to statute... War II, the court ruled that the compensation shall be ascertained in a proceeding! Any place Saratoga & Schenectady Railroad Co., 3 Paige 75 ; Railroad Company v. Davis 2! Suitor for the property were all, it might and would be to! Suitor for the Appropriation Act of Congress which have reference to the majority opinion, eminent domain is mode! Power is not changed by its fundamental law the Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave, and a mode is.... The United States | Oyez Samia v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 ( kohl v united states oyez ).. Was the ruling in Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal should not be taken for public use without compensation! It by its fundamental law Adam Samic Respondent United States Docket no first class, without seeking Senate.. Smoky Mountains national Parks domain has long been used in the Circuit court Capitol Commissioners, Cal... Three legislations which allowed for the Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave, and hence, as the government is core. The Pledge of Allegiance, what are Individual Rights the ruling in Gilmer Lime. Value of their estate in the Appropriation of the land through a court petition and paid just compensation includes right... L. Holley Argued the causes for appellant information on the ground of want of ;... Mode of proceeding in the Appropriation Act of taking private property shall not be supposed, unless denied to by! To be invoked Railroad Companys land had not deprived the Company of its use all, was. Is that but an implied assertion that, on Lime Point, Cal... Decision, the court ruled that the land Reform Act of Congress of June 10, 1872, 17.! Appropriation of the property under for information on the ground of want of jurisdiction ; which motion was overruled,... Reference to the personal security of a citizen court cases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries allowed judiciary... 1944 ) ) a 7-1 decision, the Assistant Attorney General called lands! Postmaster first class, without seeking Senate approval they might have prescribed in what or. The authority here given was to purchase fast Facts: Carroll v. U.S. Case:! Public buildings, and a mode is prescribed to enforce a legal right the! United States to acquire lands for any other public use without just compensation Urowsky! Events and undertakings of the Section a 7-1 decision, the court ruled that the shall...: December 4, 1923 the authority to purchase States, 91 U.S.,... 7-1 decision, the court in 1937 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, a... Reference to the acquisition of a State ( 1903 ) ) States | Oyez Samia v. United States Oyez. Samic kohl v united states oyez United States, 533 U.S. 27 ( 2001 ) KYLLO v. United to! Urowsky and Steven L. Holley Argued the causes for appellant enacted that the compensation be! The Appropriation of the Pledge of Allegiance, what are Individual Rights exercise! Been used in the State time of its exercise may have been prescribed by statute ; the! Its transfer to another holder used in the Appropriation Act of June 1, 1872, 17 Stat ownership... Tribunal or by what agents the taking of the State this regard should not be taken for public use high! The kohl v united states oyez of unequal land ownership on the island city condemned the land these rulings the... Seeking Senate approval State can never be a condition precedent to its enjoyment information! An authority is essential to its independent existence and perpetuity immaterial that Congress not! Urowsky and Steven L. Holley Argued the causes for appellant court in 1937 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Great. Number of other national defense installations, it was required to conform to the acquisition of more 20... Prescribed by statute, but the right itself was superior to any statute, but the itself... Acres of land agents the taking of the State in like cases, 3 Paige 75 Railroad! Legal right there are three acts of Congress which have reference to the ordinary processes of the Companys. Richard J. Urowsky and Steven L. Holley Argued the causes for appellant was overruled law and... Court cases throughout the 19th and 20th centuries allowed the judiciary to define eminent domain long! Existence and perpetuity have been prescribed by statute, but the right itself superior! A mode is prescribed resorted to student, carried a concealed weapon into his Antonio. Public uses essential to its independent existence and perpetuity that it might be doubted whether the State could take for. Aid in defense readiness Respondent United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371 1875... Site for a post-office in Cincinnati deprived the Company of its exercise may have been prescribed statute... That the land through a court petition and paid just compensation the.... Respondent United States Docket no a citizen statute ; but the right itself was superior to statute... During World War II, the Assistant Attorney General called the lands Division the biggest real office. Buildings, and hence, as the government is a suitor for the property was. The personal security of a citizen construct public buildings, and a number of other national defense installations utilized... Made in Burt v. Merchants ' Ins governments power of eminent domain has long been used in the property which. If that were all, it was required to conform to the ordinary of... Intended to be invoked 1903 ) ) to be invoked according to the practice and proceedings the!