Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States
Headline: Wartime Navy orders treated as a government taking; Court reverses and requires extra compensation for a tobacco manufacturer whose products were commandeered for military use.
Holding: The Court held that compulsory Navy orders for a tobacco maker’s products under wartime statutes constituted an eminent domain taking, so the company is entitled to just compensation beyond earlier government payments.
- Allows suppliers to recover additional compensation when wartime orders commandeer their goods.
- Treats compulsory government procurement as a taking requiring just payment.
- Affects contractors supplying military items during national emergencies.
Summary
Background
A tobacco manufacturer sold products to the Navy and Marine Corps in late 1918 under a written Navy order that required delivery. The Navy issued Order N-4128 under wartime laws and set provisional prices, then modified the order twice. The order said compliance was obligatory, advanced payments would not fix final price, and any difference would be paid or refunded later. The company signed “accepted subject to the conditions” but was not consulted about quantity, price, timing, or place of delivery.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether those facts showed a taking of the company’s property by the Government. The opinion explains that the wartime statutes gave the President and his agencies power to requisition war materials and even to take possession of plants if necessary. Because the Navy’s order commanded delivery, relied on compulsory statutory power, and could have led to seizure of the plant if the company refused, the Court treated the transactions as a continuing, involuntary taking rather than a voluntary contract. The Court therefore held the company’s property was taken under eminent domain and that the company is entitled to just compensation beyond what it had already been paid.
Real world impact
The decision means private suppliers compelled by wartime government orders can recover additional compensation when their goods or production are effectively commandeered. It treats compulsory procurement under the cited wartime statutes as a taking requiring just payment, and the ruling reverses the lower court’s narrower award.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?