Just compensation

As used in the constitutional provision that private property shall not be taken for public use without "just compensation," this phrase means a full and fair equivalent for the loss sustained by the taking for public use. It may be more or it may be less than the mere money value of the property actually taken. The exercise of the power being necessary for the public good, and all property being held subject to its exercise when and as the public good requires it, It would be unjust to the public that it should be required to pay the owner more than a fair indemnity for the loss he sustains by the appropriation of his property for the general good. On the other hand, it would be equally unjust to the owner if he should receive less than a fair indemnity for such loss. To arrive at this fair indemnity, the interests of the public and of the owner, and ali the circumstances of the particular appropriation, should be taken into consideration.

Lewis, Em. Dom. § 462. And see Butler Hard Rubber Co. v. Newark, 61 N. J. Law, 32, 40 Atl. 224; Trinity College v. Hartford, 32 Conn. 452; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548 , 17 Sup. Ct. 966, 42 L. Ed. 270; Putnam v. Douglas County, 6 Or. 332, 25 Am. Rep. 527; Laflin v. Railroad Co. (O. a) 33 Fed. 417; Newman v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., 118 N. Y. 623, 23 N. E. 901, 7 In R. A. 289; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 312 , 13 Sup. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463; Railway Co., v. Stickney, 150 111. 362. 37 N. E. 1098, 26 In R. A. 773; Chase v. Portland, 86 Me. 367, 29 Atl. 1104; Spring Valley Waterworks v. Drinkhouse, 92 Cal. 536, 28 Pac. 683.