Edward Terry Sanford

Name: United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company — Opinion of the Court
Author: Edward Terry Sanford

United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

Summary

“United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Edward Terry Sanford. It explores elements such as the United States, riparian owner and navigation.

Quotes from United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company… (Edward Terry Sanford)

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ While the general rule requires that a judgment of a federal court shall be final and complete before it may be reviewed on a writ of error or appeal, it is well settled that an adjudication final in its nature as to a matter distinct from the general subject of the litigation and affecting only the parties to the particular controversy, may be reviewed without awaiting the determination of the general litigation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ We are of opinion that an increase in the value of the remaining portion of any parcel of land caused by its frontage on the widened river, carrying a right of immediate access to and use of the improved stream, would constitute a special and direct benefit within the meaning of the statute, as distinguished from a benefit common to all the lands in the vicinity, although the remaining portions of other riparian parcels would be similarly benefited. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ This right of a riparian owner, it is true, is subordinate to the public right of navigation, and subject to the general rules and regulations imposed for the protection of such public right. And it is of no avail against the exercise of the absolute power of Congress over the improvement of navigable rivers, but must suffer the consequences of the improvement of navigation, if Congress determines that its continuance is detrimental to the public interest in the navigation of the river. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ There is an essential difference between a substantial property right which may be enjoyed until taken away in the appropriate exercise of a paramount authority, and an uncertain and contingent privilege which may not be allowed at all. The failure to observe this distinction went to the root of the charge in reference to the deduction of benefits. And its natural, if not inevitable, effect, was to lead the jury to a lower estimate of the benefits than would have been made under a proper charge. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ The kind of benefit, which is not allowed to be estimated for the purpose of such deduction, is that which comes from sharing in the common advantage and convenience of increased public facilities, and the general advance in value of real estate in the vicinity by reason thereof. * * * The advantages of more convenient access to the particular lot of land in question, and of having a front upon a more desirable avenue, are direct benefits to that lot, giving it increased value in itself. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ And this error was the more serious since the plan of the improvement contemplated that the improved river should become a slip for a docks and industries and recognized the right of a riparian owner to construct docks upon the harbor line ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ In order that the United States might be given immediate possession and proceed with the work, the Ford Motor Company, the principal 'local interest,' made a deposit to cover any awards of compensation and damages that might be made. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Terry Sanford, United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company…

“ Cas. 1222; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U.S. 53, 70, 33 S.C.t. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1063. There is no limitation upon this right of a riparian owner in the laws of Michigan. On the contrary it was recognized in Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18, 25, 77 Am. Dec. 435, that the rights of riparian owners must be determined by the common law so far as applicable to the local situation; and in Ryan v. Brown, 18 Mich. 196, 210, 100 Am. Dec. 154, it was said that:
'If wharves and similar conveniences were not allowed upon our large streams, the shipping business would become practically worthless. ”

Edward Terry Sanford

Summary

Quotes from United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company… (Edward Terry Sanford)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature