William O. Douglas

“ And so in this case if the United States had taken this plant for a permanent laundry to run for the Army and not for the public [1] it need not pay for the trade-routes. As Justice Brandeis said in Mitchell v. United States, supra, 267 U.S. at page 345, 45 S.Ct. at page 294, 69 L.Ed. 644, 'If the business was destroyed, the destruction was an unintended incident of the taking of land.' As much seems to be conceded by the Court in the present case. That concession is necessary if precedent is to control. ”

“ The truth of the matter is that the United States is being forced to pay not for what it gets but for what the owner loses. The value of trade-routes represents the patronage of the customers of the laundry. Petitioner, I assume, lost some of them as a result of the government's temporary taking of the laundry. ”

“ Under the authorities that award cannot be increased unless we are to sit as a Committee on Claims of the Congress and award consequential damages.
Notes
↑ As respects payment for the going-concern value when the government takes over a business to run it as such see City of Omaha v. Omaha Water Co., 218 U.S. 180, 202-203, 30 S.Ct. 615, 619 620, 54 L.Ed. 991, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 1084.↑ That is the measure of compensation for the taking of a temporary interest in property. United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 382, 65 S.Ct. 357, 361, 89 L.Ed. 311, 156 A.L.R. 390; United States v. ”