323 U.S. 373 (1945)
In 1928 General Motors Corporation leased a one-story warehouse building in Chicago for a term of twenty years for the storage and distribution of automobile parts and fitted the premises for this use.1 In 1942 the United States became subtenants of a portion of the floor space, leaving General Motors in possession of some 93,000 square feet.2
On June 8, 1942 the United States filed a petition in the District Court seeking condemnation of the temporary use of the remaining space for a term ending June 30, 1943 pursuant to the Second War Powers Act.3 The court entered an order declaring the property condemned and granting the United States immediate possession, use, and improvement.4 General Motors removed its personal property from the area and dismantled bins and fixtures so that the space was available for government use by June 19.5
At the trial for compensation the Government called a real estate expert who testified that the fair rental value of the space was 35 cents per square foot per year.6 General Motors called expert witnesses who testified that the fair rental value was 43 cents per square foot.7 It also introduced evidence that the rent it paid its landlord had varied from 41.9 to 43.24 cents per square foot during 1940 to 1942.8 General Motors then offered to prove items of cost caused by removal of the contents, including salaries of employees engaged in the work, compensation due employees put out of work, wages of janitors and watchmen, shipping costs, freight and haulage charges, rental of storage space, the value of bin equipment destroyed, and the estimated original cost of installation of fixed equipment lost, but the court sustained an objection to the offer.9
The jury awarded compensation in a lump sum at a rate of approximately 40 cents per square foot for the term of one year.10 General Motors appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment by a vote of 2 to 1.11 The Supreme Court granted review of the ruling on the elements that may be considered in arriving at just compensation.12
Whether the long-term rental value of an empty building is the sole measure of the value of short-term occupancy carved out of a long-term lease?13
No. The established facts show that the United States condemned a one-year term in a warehouse that General Motors had fitted for storage and distribution of automobile parts.16 The premises still contained its bins, fixtures, and commodities.17 The market value of the temporary occupancy must therefore reflect the actual condition of the premises as a functioning leased facility rather than an empty shell.18
The long-term rental value of an empty building is not the sole measure of compensation for the temporary occupancy taken.19
Whether the necessary expense of removing personal property stored in the building must be considered in computing compensation for the temporary occupancy?20
Yes. The established facts record that General Motors offered detailed proof of salaries, shipping charges, storage rentals, and related expenses necessarily incurred to clear the 93,000 square feet for government use by June 19.23 These items directly affect the price a long-term tenant would demand and a temporary subtenant would pay for the equipped space.24
The necessary expense of removing personal property must be considered in computing compensation for the temporary occupancy.25
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Black
Justice Douglas agreed that respondent is entitled to compensation for fixtures and permanent equipment destroyed or depreciated in value by the taking.26 He likewise agreed that respondent is entitled to a further increase in its award.27 He dissented from allowing the cost of removing personal property from the premises to be reflected in the award.28
He reasoned that allowing the offer of proof would let consequential damages in under a new guise.29 He stated that consequential losses or injuries resulting from the taking are not compensable under the Fifth Amendment absent an Act of Congress.30
Whether compensation must be awarded for the value of a tenant's fixtures and equipment taken or destroyed by the government's action in addition to the rental value of the occupancy?31
Yes. The established facts show that General Motors offered to prove the value of bin equipment destroyed and the original cost of fixed equipment lost when it dismantled the premises to make the space available for government use.34 Because these items constitute distinct property interests their destruction requires compensation beyond the market rental value of the floor space alone.35
Compensation must be awarded for the value of a tenant's fixtures and equipment taken or destroyed by the government's action in addition to the rental value of the occupancy.36