Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States of America, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elizabeth v. Fox, 24856 (1958)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 24856 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 30, 1958
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 257 F.2d 805 UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth V. FOX et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 312, Docket 24856. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued June 13, 1958. Decided June 30, 1958. John Marshall Lockwood, Huntington, N. Y., Cullen & Dykman, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Jackson A. Dykman, Augustus J. Wheeler and Herman Meltzer, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants. Perry W. Morton, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Harry T. Dolan,
More

257 F.2d 805

UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Elizabeth V. FOX et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 312, Docket 24856.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued June 13, 1958.
Decided June 30, 1958.

John Marshall Lockwood, Huntington, N. Y., Cullen & Dykman, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Jackson A. Dykman, Augustus J. Wheeler and Herman Meltzer, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants.

Perry W. Morton, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Harry T. Dolan, Brooklyn, N. Y., Roger P. Marquis and Fred W. Smith, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner-plaintiff-appellee.

Before HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and RYAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal brought by the owners of property condemned by the Government challenges the adequacy and basis for the award of compensation made after trial in the District Court without a jury.

2

There is no claim of error in the reception or exclusion of evidence. Two valuation witnesses testified for the owners and one for the Government.1 The trial judge personally viewed the property and the surrounding neighborhood. In a well considered opinion filed after trial the court found just compensation payable to appellants in the sum of $59,450. There is substantial evidence to support his findings and conclusions and they should not be modified or disturbed (Phillips v. United States, 2 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 714).

3

Affirmed.

1

These valuations of appellants' property before and after taking were:

         Appellants' witnesses   Government's witness
        -----------------------  --------------------
           Baker      Griffith          Smith
           -----      --------          -----
before   $328,000.   $297,000.        $198,000.
after     157,400.    129,525.         138,535.
         ---------   ---------        ---------
         $170,600.   $167,475.        $ 59,465.
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer