Citations
- 96 F. Supp. 777
Full opinion text
DAWKINS, Chief Judge.
This suit was brought under the provisions of Section 717f, Title 15, U.S.C.A. Subsection (h), which is quoted as follows: “When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas, and the necessary land or other property, in addition to right-of-way, for the location of compressor stations, pressure apparatus, or other stations or equipment necessary to the proper operation of such pipe line or pipe lines, it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts. The practice and procedure in any action or proceeding for that purpose in the district court of the United States shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in similar action or proceeding in the courts of the State where the property is situated: Provided, That the United States district courts shall only have jurisdiction of cases when the amount claimed by the owner of the property to be condemned exceeds $3,000.”
The complainant alleges it holds the proper certificate of necessity and convenience for constructing “additional pipe lines” as a part of its “natural gas system extending from a point in the State of Texas to points in the States of West Virginia and Ohio,” and that the approved location and route of said pipe lines make it necessary to acquire an easement over the property of defendant in the manner authorized by this statute and the procedure provided by the state law. Paragraph 9 of the complaint reads as follows: “That plaintiff, in good faith, has negotiated with defendant for the acquisition of said right of way, but has been unable to agree with defendant therefor; that although said right is not worth as much as Three Thousand Dollars ($3000.00), def endant is claiming in excess of that amount for same.”
Defendant filed its “Special Pleas, Answer and Counterclaim,” first denying jurisdiction as indicated in said Article 9 of the complaint, but admitting “that there is a controversy between the plaintiff and your defendant,” while insisting less than $3000 is involved. Extensive allegations are made as to the value of the properties sought to be taken, damages that will be caused to the entire tract, etc. The most pertinent article, No. 11, of the answer, on the question of jurisdiction, ratione materiae, is as follows : “Further answering and in the .or-native and in case the court should hold that it has jurisdiction, and in the further alternative and in case the court should further hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the right-of-way and easement over and across your defendant’s land as proposed, then and in that case defendant is entitled to recover from the complainant for the property covered and included in the easement the sum of Eight Hundred, Seventy-five and No/100 ($875.00) Dollars, and for the value of the timber and growth thereon the sum of One Hundred and No/100 ($100.00) Dollars, and for the damages to and depreciation of the balance of defendant’s land composing sai