DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.

Syllabus.

DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 309. Argued November 8, 1939.-Decided December 4, 1939.

1. Under § 4 of the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, the Secre-
tary of War may agree to purchase easements for flowage purposes,
subject to the perfecting of the title through condemnation. P. 282.
2. Such an agreement fixes the value in -condemnation proceedings
brought later by the Government against the landowner to make
good title. Pp. 282-283.
3. The jurisdiction of the Court' in such condemnation proceedings
depends upon § 4 of the Flood Control Act and not upon the
Tucker Act or the general statute of condemnation; the land-
owner may plead an agreement by the United States as fixing the
amount that the Government must be adjudged to pay as com-
pensation. P. 282.
4. Just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for property taken
for public use is determined as of the time of the taking. P. 283.
5. Unless a taking has occurred previously, in actuality or by a
statutory provision fixing it otherwise, the time of the taking in
condemnation under the Flood Control.Act of May 15, 1928, is the
time of the payment of the money award by the United States,
and no interest is due upon the award. P. 284.
In the absence of statutory direction, no interest accrues before
the taking.
6. Fluctuations in the value of property which occur by reason of
legislation authorizing a governmental project, or by reason .of the
beginning or completion of such project, are incidents of ownership;
and a reduction in value so occurring can not be considered as a
"taking" in the constitutional sense. P. 285.
7. The mere enactment of legislation authorizing condemnation of
property can not constitute a taking; the legislation may be
repealed or modified, or appropriations may fail. P. 286.
8. In this case, there was no taking by the commencement or com-
pletion of a set-back levee (between which levee and a riverside
levee the owner's land lay); nor by the dynamiting of a levee by
Army officers during a flood emergency (the levee later having
been restored to its previous height); nor by the retention of water
272 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Argument for Petitioner. 308 U. S.

from unusual floods for a somewhat longer period or its increase

in depth or destructiveness as an incidental consequence of the
set-back levee. Pp. 286-287.
102 F. 2d 5, 105 F. 2d 318, modified.

CERTioRArI, post, p. 538, to review the affirmance of a

judgment against the United States in a proceeding in
condemnation under the Flood Control Act of May 15,
1928.

Mr. J. L. London for petitioner.

There was a taking when the set-back levee was started
(or at any rate when it was completed) or when Congress
passed the Flood Control Act and adopted a definite plan
of flood control.
The plan contemplated the practical taking over of the
riverside levee by the Government; and the undisputed
evidence shows that the Government asserted complete
dominion over it. The program of the levee district for
raising the levee was halted. Appellant's free use and
enjoyment of his lands and the property herein involved
were materially interfered with from the time the work
began, if not before. If at any time he wished to sell
or dispose of the land, he could only do so subject to the
easement of the Government and at a reduced price. The
security of his land was materially reduced as soon as the
work started: His right to have the levee stand intact,
or to be raised and improved as a protection to his land,
disappeared.
Would the Government permit any levee district or any
group of individuals or any person to build the riverside
levee up to sixty-five feet, which would be a complete
'protection of the land of this petitioner and others situ-
ated in the floodway area? Would not the Government
immediately invoke the applicable provisions of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899?
 DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.
271 Argument for Petitioner.

Though Congress could repeal the Flood Control Act

prior to the time that anything was begun pursuant to it,
yet as soon as work started under' the Act there was a
taking of the easement in question and an obligation on
the part of the Government to compensate the owner.
Could the petitioner have sold this land free and clear of
the servitude imposed by the Act at any time after the
Government began construction of the set-back levee?
It is obvious that anybody buying the land would buy it
subject to that servitude. Therefore, there must have
been a taking.
Even in the absence of an answer or counterclaim, or
.any other pleading, the landowner would be entitled to
prove his damages and the contract would have been, ad-
missible and binding upon the parties. Chicago v. Chi-
cago R., 166 U. S. 226; Springfield Ry. Co. v. Calkins, 90
Mo. 538; 3 S. W. 82; Missouri Power & Light Co. v. Creed,
32 S. W. 2d 783.
The offer to purchase came voluntarily from the Gov-
ernment after a thorough investigation, after three sepa-
rate appraisals.
Where the Government voluntarily comes into court
there is jurisdiction to litigate all of the rights of the
parties growing out of the transaction or subject matter
involved and to do complete justice between the parties
in the matter. Bull v. United States, 295 U. S. 247.
This is not a case where the petitioner had a separate
transaction with the Government, that it is now seeking
to enforce in this suit. It is a situation where the parties
by contract fixed the damages or agreed upon the value
of the flowage rights. The cases which hold that parties
can only sue the Government under some statute au-
thorizing it, are wholly without application.
The Government contends that the rule of the Thekla
case, 266 U. S. 328, applies only in admiralty cases, but
274 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Argument for the United States. 308 U. S.

this Court has. not limited the rule to admiralty cases.

See The Paquete Habana,189 U. S.453.
Mr. Warner W. Gardner, with whom Solicitor Gen-
eral Jackson, Assistant Attorney General Littell, and Mr.
Jacob N. Wasserman were on the brief, for the United
States.
The District Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudi-
cate petitioner's contract claim.
The United States can not be sued without its con-
sent, either by direct suit or by counterclaim against it.
Nassau Smelting Works v. United States, 266 U. 8. 101,
106; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n,
245 U. S. 493, 504-505; North Dakota-Montana W. G.
Assn. v. United States, 66 F. 2d 573, 577-578, cert. den.
291 U. S.672; Owen v. United States, 8 F. 2d 992, 993.
The United States is not liable for interest on a con-
tract claim unless either the contract itself or a statute
shows a contrary intention. Smyth v. United States, 302
U. S. 329, 353; United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard,
127 U. S. 251; United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S.
211; United States v. North American Co., 253 U. S.330,
336; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 261 U. S.
299, 304.
The United States has not as yet taken a flowage ease-
ment over petitioner's property. There was no taking on
the date when the work began. The existing riverside
levee had not been altered and thus it afforded to the
petitioner's land the same protection it had formerly
enjoyed.
Nothing had been done at that time to increase the
possibility of overflow.
The petitioner has not been deprived of his right to
protect his land against floods.
The provisions of § 14 of the Act ,of March 3, 1899
(c. 425, 30 Stat. 1152; 33 U. S. C. § 408), which forbid
 DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.
271 Argument for the United States.

interference with levees and other structures and which

are made applicable by § 9, of the 1928 Act, apply only
to levees and other structures built by the United States,
and consequently have no application to this levee, which
was built by local interests. The restoration of the por-
tions of the riverside levee unlawfully dynamited dur-
ing the 1937 flood obviously did not transform the entire
levee, as petitioner contends, or even the dynamited
portions, into a levee "built by the United States"
within the meaning of the 1899 Act.
Furthermore, even if it could be said that the Govern-
ment
prove has now deprived the petitioner of his right to im-
and raise the levee, this would not constitute
a
taking. Matthews v. United States, 87 Ct. Cls. 662;
Jackson v. United States, 230 U. S. 1; Hughes v. United
States, 230 U. S. 24.
There was no taking on the date the set-back levee was
virtually completed. Nothing had been done to increase
the possibility of the overflow. The riverside levee had
not been altered, and the existence of the set-back levee
would not affect the frequency of flooding.
Furthermore, under §1 of the Flood Control Act, noth-
ing could be done which would subject petitioner's land
to more frequent overflow until the floodway was com-
pleted.
The fact that the set-back levee would confine the flood-
waters did not cause a taking. Only waters which had
already overtopped the unreduced riverside levee would
be confined by the set-back; and that would not constitute
a taking, but merely consequential damage. Hughes v.
United States, 230 U. S. 24; Sanguinetti v. United States,
264 U. S. 146; Jackson v. United States, 230 U. S. 1; Bed-
ford v. United States, 192 U. S. 217; Gibson v. United
States, 166 U. S. 269; Christman v. United States, 74 F.
2d 112; Kirk v. Good, 13 F. Supp. 1020, appeal dismissed
upon stipulation. 64 F. 2d 1015.
 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Opinion of the Court. 308 U.'S.

No taking can be predicated upon unauthorized acts of

Government officers. Hooe v. United States, 218 U. S.
322; Hughes v. United States, 230 U. S. 24. The latter
case held that if the act of an officer of the United States
in dynamiting a levee in an emergency was wrongful, it
was not the act of the United States and did not amount
to a taking of the property overflowed as a result of the
dynamiting.
Since the petitioner's land would have been overflowed
during the 1937 flood regardless of the project, clearly no
taking occurred at that time.
The entry of judgment did not constitute a taking.
Barnidge v. United States, 101 F. 2d 295, 298; Kanakanui
v. United.States,244 F. 923; Johnson & Wimsatt v. Reich-
elderfer, 66 F. 2d 217; Miller v. United St'ates, 57 F. 2d
424; Districtof Columbia v. Hess, 35 App. D. C. 38. Since
the fuse-plug section can not be reduced until the neces-
sary flowage easements are acquired, no taking will occur
until the judgment is paid.
MR. JUSTICE REED delivered the opinion, of the
Court.
A writ of certiorari was granted I to review the judg-
ment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2
affirming a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri which awarded to a property owner,
against the United States, compensation in condemnation
less in amount than a sum fixed by an arrangement be-
tween the parties prior to the institution of the condemna-
tion. This judgment provided for payment of the award
into the registry of the court and that upon such payment
the United States should be entitled to the relief sought.
Although the issue was raised by the landowner, no pro-
'Post, p. 538.
- 102 F. 2d 5, 105 F. 2d 318.
 DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.
271 Opinion of the Court.

vision was made as to interest. The writ was granted to

determine important questions of federal law as to the
effect in condemnation, of prior agreements by the United
States as to the' amount of awards and as to the running
of interest.
This proceeding arose in the course of carrying out the
protection from destructive floods of the alluvial valley of
the Mississippi between Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and
Head of Passes, Louisiana. This work of internal im-
provement was begun under the Flood Control Act of
May 15, 1928.1 The passage of this Act followed the
disastrous experience with the flood of 1927 and was based
upon a comprehensive report and plan known as the
Jadwin Plan, Major General Edgar Jadwin, then Chief of
Engineers of the United States Army, being in charge of
its development.' The plan covers the great alluvial val-
ley of the Mississippi through its entire length from the
Ohio to the delta. In essence, the plan in its entirety is
based upon a levee system which constricts the water to
a moderate degree and allows in periods of extreme floods
the escape from some lower levees, known as fuse-plugs,
of the water from the main channel to back waters and
floodways.
The particular portion of the plan involved here is
known as the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway. Prior
to the passage of the Flood Control Act, there were levees
along the west bank of the Mississippi between Birds
Point, Missouri, and New Madrid, Missouri, which sub-
stantially followed the meanderings of the river. To get
a greater area for the spreading of flood waters, the plan
345 Stat. 534, 33 U. S. C. § 702a-702m.
' The plan is found in "Flood Control in the Mississippi Valley,"
H. R. Doc. No. 90, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. Reference is also made in the
Flood Control Act to a plan recommended by the Mississippi River
Commission and authority is granted to adjust the engineering differ-
ences between the two plans.
 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Opinion of the Court. 308 U. S.

provided for a second levee to be set back about five miles

from the riverbank levee running from Birds Point to St.
Johns Bayou, just east of New Madrid. Near its up-
stream connection with the set-back levee the present
riverbank levee would be lowered some five feet by what
is called a fuse-plug, so that at high flood the water will
begin to flow into the wide floodway below. It is ex-
pected that this enlarged channel will keep anticipated
floods from rising above the levees protecting Cairo, Illi-
nois. The set-back levee will confine its diverted water
to the floodway area between the set-back levee and the
riverside levee and will return the water to the Mississippi
through a lower fuse-plug section where a gap is left in
the levee system to permit complete drainage. The land
involved in this condemnation is situated in this floodway
immediately east of the set-back levee and about midway
between Birds Point and New Madrid.
The Flood Control Act stipulates that the United States
"shall provide flowage rights for additional destructive
flood waters that will pass by reason of diversions from
the main channel of the Mississippi River." The same
section authorizes the Secretary of War to "cause pro-
ceedings to be instituted for the acquirement by con-
demnation of any lands, easements, or rights of way
which . . ". are needed in carrying out this project. .. ."
Jurisdiction of the proceeding is given to the United
States district court for the district in which the property
is located. Commissioners were authorized to view and
value. It was further provided: "When the owner of
any land, easement, or right of way shall fix a price for
the same which, in th6 opinion of the Secretary of War is
reasonable, he may purchase the same at such
price; . .
There is the additional provision in § 1 of this same
Act that "pending completion of any floodway, spillway,
'45 Stat. 534, c. 569, § 4.
 DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.
271 Opinion of the Court.

or diversion channel, the areas within the same shall be

given the same degree of protection as is afforded by
levees on the west side of the river contiguous to the levee
at the head of said floodway."
Construction work began on the set-back levee on Octo-
ber 21, 1929, and was substantially complete on October
31, 1932. The riverside levee is maintained at its original
height of about 58 feet and the upper fuse-plug, which
is designed to admit water into the floodway, has not yet
been created.
In January, 1937, the Mississippi River attained its
highest flood stage in recorded history. Late in that
month the United States Army officer in charge of Mem-
phis Engineers, District No. 1, directed a subordinate to
proceed to the area and place the Birds Point-New
Madrid Floodway in operation. These instructions were
issued by the officer in charge of the district without
orders from any superior. The directions were carried
out after flood waters were trickling over the riverside
levee into the floodway area through a natural crevasse
and when pursuant to these orders an artificial crevasse
was created by dynamiting the northern portion of the
upper fuse-plug section. Later another artificial crevasse
was created and other natural crevasses developed.
Through these crevasses petitioner's land was flooded.
As the river would have reached a stage sufficiently high
to overtop the riverside levee, even with extraordinary
high-water maintenance, the land of the petitioner would
have been flooded without the crevassing. The set-back
levee did confine the diverted water to the floodway. It
increased its depth and destructiveness on petitioner's
land. After the flood subsided, the riverside levee,'in-
cluding the upper fuse-plug section, was restored to its
previous height.
Prior to the institution of this action, orders had been
issued by the Secretary of War, under the provisions of
280 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Opinion of the Court. 308 U. S.

§ 4 of the Flood Control Act, to purchase this tract of

land. A letter containing the offer for the flowage rights
here involved, dated January 14, 1932, had been received
by the petitioner and the offer accepted by him within
an agreed extension of the limited time. The letter, so
far as pertinent, reads as follows:
"2. I am accordingly directed by the Chief of Engi-
neers, U. S. Army, to offer you Thirty-one thousand six
hundred eighty-one and 98/100-Dollars ($31,681.98) for
a perpetual flowage easement as contemplated by the Act
of May 15, 1928, over your land designated as Tract No.
243, as indicated on the inclosed plat, this being the maxi-
mum amount that can be offered you under the above
authorization.
"3. Should this offer be accepted, friendly condemna-
tion proceedings will be entered in Court, with the re-
quest that an agreed verdict be awarded in the amount
of this offer. Payment cannot be made without Court
action as title cannot be cleared. Acceptance of this
offer should expedite final settlement and reduce legal
expenses."
After its acceptance, there was an attempted with-
drawal of this offer by a letter of July 8, 1932, which
advised the owner that "after a careful review of the
question of flowage over these tracts it was found by
higher authority that the prices first suggested could not
be properly recommended to the Court."
After this letter, a petition was filed by the United
States to condemn over the land here in question a per-
petual right, power easement, and privilege to overflow,
as contemplated by said project and described in House
Document 90. After the appointment and report of the
commissioners for the determination of an award, peti-
tioner filed an answer and counterclaim. In the answer
he set up that prior to the filing of the suit a "written
offer of settlement for the damages and for the purchase
 DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.
271 Opinion of the Court.

of an easement" for floodway purposes was made by the

United States and accepted by petitioner. Petitioner
further alleged an offer of title to the easement sought
and a request for the payment of the agreed sum. Judg-
ment against the United States was asked in that amount,
"with interest," to be paid into court for the benefit of
the defendants, in accordance with their respective rights
and against the defendants for the perpetual flowage ease-
ments "upon payment into Court" of the agreed sum.
Changing the designation of the pleading from answer to
counterclaim, these allegations were repeated as a coun-
terclaim. The Court sustained a motion of the United
States to strike this answer and counterclaim on the
ground that the petitioner had waived his rights under
the written agreement because of his failure to plead
them prior to the entry of the interlocutory order allow-
ing the condemnation and appointing commissioners.
Subsequently the reports of the first and second commis-
sions appointed to view the property were set aside for
reasons which are immaterial here. To the report of the
third commission, awarding $17,921.70, the petitioner re-
newed the objection that the agreement between the
United States and him was decisive in fixing the award
at $31,681.98; asked for interest "from such time as the
Court may find that plaintiff [the United States] appro-
priated the flowage easement in question" and sought new
viewers to determine the award as claimed by petitioners
or in the alternative that the Court enter judgment for
the sum claimed with appropriate terms to create the
flowage easement in the United States.
Upon this exception a hearing was had and findings
and judgment entered confirming this report and adjudg-
ing the condemnor the easement sought upon payment
of the award. Nothing appeared in the order as to in-
terest. By assignments of error on appeal to the Court
of Appeals and in the statement of questions involved
 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Opinion of the Court. 308 U. S.

and reasons for granting the writ of certiorari, petitioner

has preserved the issues of his right to an award in the
agreed amount and to interest from the date found to
mark the taking from him of the land.
Determinationof Value.-By answer and exception to
the report of the commissioners, the petitioner pleaded
the agreement on the value of the easement evidenced
by the letter and acceptance referred to above. The
Government contends that the "relevance of the con-
tract . . . as a measure of the value of the easement is
not in issue; the petitioner pitches his case solely on the
proposition that he can enforce the contract." With
this contention we do not agree. In the answer, it is
true, judgment is prayed against the United States for the
agreed amount. But a judgment is offered to the United
States for the perpetual -flowage easement upon payment
of the sum into court. In the objection to the commis-
sioners' report the prayer is for entry of a judgment in
the agreed sum "and upon payment of the same that the
Court decree an appropriate judgment in favor of plain-
tiff for the said easement." We construe the accepted
offer as an agreement to fix the price at the named figure
for the easement sought. Paragraph 3 of the letter
shows condemnation was in mind.
This action is brought under the provisions of § 4 of
the Flood Control Act. The jurisdiction of the Court
to consider the landowner's contention depends upon the
language of that Act, not upon the Tucker Act I or the
general statute on condemnation." We have no doubt
that the authority to purchase given to the Secretary of
War is sufficiently broad to authorize a purchase of peti-
tioner's interest in land subject to perfecting the title
through condemnation. The effect of such an agreement
'Judicial Code § 24 (20), 28 U. S. C. § 41 (20).
'25 Stat. 357.
 DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES.
271 Opinion of the Court.

is to fix the value of the easement when the authority

of the Court is invoked against a party to the agreement
to acquire good title.' In dealing with a stipulation to
waive a requirement of filing a claim for tax refund with
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we held such
waiver enforceable in the face of a statutory requirement
for such filing." The convenience of preparation for
trial and .the interest of orderly procedure was decisive
there. Here the same reasons with the supporting lan-
guage as to the power of purchase leads to the conclusion
that the trial court erred in striking the answer and re-
fusing the motion to determine the value at the agreed
price.10 We need not consider the counterclaim as the
answer covers the entire subject of the determination of
value.
Interest.-Petitioner seeks interest on the judgment
from the time of the taking or appropriation of the flow-
age easement. Petitioner fixes this appropriation at the
time of the enactment of the Flood Control Act of May
15, 1928, on the theory that the passage of that Act di-
minished immediately the value of this property because
the plan contemplated the ultimate use of the floodway.
Alternatively the date of the taking is fixed by petitioner
as of October 21, 1929, when work began on the set-back
levee or October 31, 1932, when the set-back levee was
completed.
There is no disagreement inprinciple. Just compensa-
tion is value at the time of the taking. The Congress, in
other situations, has adopted the time of taking as the
°Cf. Wachovia-Bank & Trust Co..v. United States, 98 F. 2d 609
(C. C. A. 4th).
'Tucker v: Alexander, 275 U. S. 228.
10Cf. Judson v. United States, 120 F. 637 (C. C. A. 2d) (U. S. Dis-
trict Attorney's agreement to submit matter of damages to arbitration,
in condemnation, in accordance with the state statute is binding).
284 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Opinion of the Court. 308 U. S.

date for determination of value." For the reason that

compensation is due at the time of taking, the owner at
that time, not the owner at an earlier or later date, re-
ceives the payment."2 Unless a taking has occurred previ-
ously in actuality or by a statutory provision, which fixes
the time of taking by an event such as the filing of an ac-
tion,'3 we are of the view that the taking in a condemna-
tion suit urnder this statute takes place upon the payment
of the money award by the condemnor. Nointerest is due
upon the award. Until taking, the condemnor may dis-
continue or abandon his effort. 4 The determination of
the award is an offer subject to acceptance by the con-
demnor and thus gives to the user of the sovereign power
of eminent domain an opportunity to determine whether
the valuations leave the cost of completion within his
resources. Condemnation is a means by which the
sovereign may find out what any piece of property will
cost. "The owner is protected by the rule that title does
" 46 Stat. 1421; 47 Stat. 722, § 305.
" Kindred v. Union Pacific R. Co., 225 U. S. 582, 597; in Roberts v.
Northern Pacific R. Co., 158 U. S. 1, 10, the precedents are. col-
lected.
"See various statutory means of determining the time of taking in
Nichols, The Law of Eminent Domain, 1917, § 436.
"See Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 598, 599, where there was a
statutory provision relating to condemnation for streets in the District
of Columbia which made the failure of the Congress to appropriate,
after six months in session, for the payment of the award of damages
an event which terminated the proceedings. "This provision," this
Court said, "secures the owners from being compelled to part with
their lands without receiving just compensation, and is within the con-
stitutional authority of the legislature." "The Constitution does not
require the damages to be actually paid at any earlier time; nor is the
owner of the'land entitled to interest pending the proceedings."
Cf. Kanakanuiv. United States, 244 F. 923 (C. C. A. 9th); Johnson
& Wimsatt v. Reichelderfer, 62 App. D. C. 237; 66 F. 2d 217;
Barnidge v. United States, 101 F. 2d 295, 298 (C. C. A. 8th).
" See Lewis, Law of Eminent Domain, 3rd Ed., § 955.
 DANFORTH v. UNITED STATES. 285
271 Opinion of the Court.

not pass until compensation has been ascertained and

paid, . . ." A reduction or increase in the value of
property may occur by reason of legislation for or the
beginning or completion of a project. Such changes in
value are incidents of ownership. They cannot be con-
sidered as a "taking" in the constitutional sense.
In Brown v. United States ' this Court had occasion
to consider whether interest should be allowed on the
value of the property from the date of summons, the day
fixed by the state statute to determine compensation and
damages. In that case condemnation proceeded under"
the federal conformity statute which directs federal courts
to conform to state practice and procedure, "as near as
may be." " Interest, it was thought, was not governed
by the conformity act, 9 but should be allowed in accord-
ance with the state law from the date of
summons.
This conclusion flowed from the acceptance by this Court,
without question, of the day of summons as the date for
the determination of value, the day of taking.2" Here
proceedings are under a Flood Control Act prescribing
"Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U. S.581, 587.
1,263 U. S. 78, 84 et seq.
25 Stat. 357.
"263 U. S. at 87.
" 263 U. S. at 85-86: "In these cases, the value found was at the
time of taking or vesting of title and the presumption indulged was
that the valuation included the practical damage arising from the in-
ability to sell or lease after the blight of the summons to condemn.
Where the valuation is as of the date of the summons, however, no
such elements can enter into it and the allowance of interest from that
time is presumably made to cover injury of this kind to the land owner
pending the proceedings." At p. 87: "But the disposition of federal
courts should be to adopt the local rule if it is- a fair one, and, as
already indicated, we are not able to say that with the value fixed as
of the date of summons, and the opportunity afforded promptly there-
after to take possession, interest allowed from the date of the sum-
mons is not a provision making for just compensation."
286 OCTOBER TERM, 1939.
Opinion of the Court. 308 U. S.

jurisdiction and procedure. Where the condemnation is

free from statutory direction, as here, there would be no
interest before the taking. 1
This leaves for consideration the contention that there
was a taking by the enactment of the legislation, when
work began on the set-back levee or when that levee was
completed. The mere enactment of legislation which au-
thorizes condemnation of property cannot be a taking.
Such legislation may be repealed or modified, or appropri-
ations may fail."
For completion of the set-back levee to amount to a
taking, it must result in an appropriation of the property
to the, uses of the Government.2 3 This levee is substan-
tially complete. The Government has condemned the
land upon which the set-back is built. The tract now in
litigation lies between the set-back and riverbank levees.
The Government could become liable for a taking, in
whole or in part, even without direct appropriation, by
such construction as would put upon this land a burden,
actually experienced, of caring for floods greater than it
bore prior to the construction. The riverbank levee at
the fuse-plug has not been lowered from its previous
height. Consequently the land is as well protected from
destructive floods as formerly. We cannot conclude that
the retention of water from unusual floods for a some-
what longer period or its increase in depth or destructive-
ness by reason of the set-back levee, has the effect of
taking. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this is
'Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 321.
"Willink v. United States, 240 U. S. 572; Bauman v. Ross, 167
U. S. 548, 596; United States v. Sponenbarger,ante, p. 256.
" Obviously if there was not a taking at the completion of the set-
back levee, there could not be a taking by the beginning of construc-
tion.
 BRUNO v. UNITED STATES.
271 Statement of the Case.
"an incidental consequence" of the building of the set-
back levee!' Nor can we conclude that a taking occurred
through the act of the Army officers in dynamiting the
levee during the emergency of the 1937 flood. It was
restored to its previous height. Up until this time, the
plan for a fuse-plug to permit the escape of destructive
flood waters was not in effect. Indeed, the petitioner
disclaims any contention that the crevassing of ti levee
by the Government was a taking. The taking, he urges,
took place before and this use is only evidence of the
control obtained by the prior taking.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

BRUNO v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 300. Argued November 6, 1939.-Decided December 4, 1939.

1. Under the Act of March 16, 1878, the accused in'a criminal case
in the federal court is entitled, upon request, to have the jury
instructed, in substance, that his failure to avail himself of the
privilege of testifying does not create any presumption against
him and must not be permitted by the jury to weigh against him.
P. 292.
2. Refusal to grant such an instruction is not a "technical error" to
be disregarded upon review or motion for new trial, within the
meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 391. P. 293.
105 F. 2d 921, reversed.

CERTIORARI, post, p. 536, to review error in the affirm-

ance of a criminal conviction.
"Compare Bedford v. United States, 192 U. S. 217; Jackson v.
United States, 230 U. S. 1; Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U. S.
146.