Peabody v. United States
Headline: Coastal resort owners failed to get compensation as the Court upheld dismissal, finding the Government did not take land by locating a fort and firing occasional test shots, limiting claims against military use.
Holding: The Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Government had not taken the claimants’ land because there was no established intention to use the fort’s guns in peacetime to deprive owners of its use.
- Denies compensation unless the Government clearly intends ongoing peacetime use that burdens property.
- Short, occasional test firings do not prove a permanent taking of nearby land.
- Owners must show actual appropriation or persistent use, not only reduced property value from fear.
Summary
Background
Samuel Ellery Jennison owned about two hundred acres on Gerrish Island, developed as a summer resort with a hotel, cottages, roads, a pier, and recreational facilities. The United States built a nearby fort (later called Fort Foster) on adjacent government land. The guns at the fort could fire over much of the claimants’ shorefront. Jennison, his mortgagees (Mary R. Peabody and the Saco and Biddeford Savings Institution), and a later grantee sued, saying the Government’s fort and firing practice had reduced the property’s value and effectively taken the land without paying for it.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether the Government had actually imposed a permanent burden that amounted to taking private land. The lower court had found only a few test firings in 1902 that caused $150 in damage and that the guns had not been fired since. The Court explained that a taking in this context requires an actual appropriation or a clear intention by the Government to use the land in peace in a way that deprives the owner of its use. Because the record showed only occasional test firings, available firing space on government shore, and no established plan to fire over the claimants’ land in peacetime, the Court concluded there was no taking and no implied agreement by the Government to pay.
Real world impact
The decision means owners near military reservations must show more than reduced value or fear of firing to get compensation. Occasional or past test shots do not prove a continuing governmental appropriation. The judgment dismissing the compensation claims was therefore affirmed.
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?