kohl v united states oyez

They moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground of want of jurisdiction, which motion was overruled. The Landmarks Law was more closely related to a zoning ordinance than eminent domain, and New York had a right to restrict construction in the public interest of protecting the general welfare of the surrounding area. The majority ruled that as long as the railroad company was paid fair market value for the land, the condemnation was lawful. 2 Pet. It is quite immaterial that Congress has not enacted that the compensation shall be ascertained in a judicial proceeding. 00-5212 and 00-5213. Lim. Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States. 39, gave authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase a central and suitable site in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the erection of a building for the accommodation of the United States courts, custom-house, United States depository, postoffice, internal-revenue and pension offices, at a cost not exceeding $300,000; and a proviso to the act declared that no money should be expended in the purchase until the State of Ohio should cede its jurisdiction over the site, and relinquish to the United States the right to tax the property. You're all set! 523, Chief Justice Taney described in plain language the complex nature of our government and the existence of two distinct and separate sovereignties within the same territorial space, each of them restricted in its powers, and each, within its sphere of action prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, independent of the other. Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 (1903)). It can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. Summary. Encylcopaedia Britannica. Another argument addressed is that the government can determine the value of the property, to justly compensate the individual property owners; the court ruled that the assessor of the property is determined by law, and as stands the property can be assessed by the government. The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Landmarks Law was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment because restricting the construction of a 50-story building did not constitute a taking of the airspace. The fifth amendment contains a provision that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The government may develop legislation to further define eminent domain, but the legislation is not required to make use of the power. 1), it was required to conform to the practice and proceedings in the courts of the State in like cases. Strong, joined by Waite, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis, Bradley, Hunt, This page was last edited on 5 December 2022, at 18:29. Co., 4 Ohio St. 323, 324; West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How. The powers vested by the Constitution in the general government demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the States. Kohl v. United States - 91 U.S. 367 (1875) Rule: If the right of eminent domain exists in the Federal government, it is a right which may be exercised within the States, so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) KYLLO v. UNITED STATES. The investment of the Secretary of the Treasury with power to obtain the land by condemnation, without prescribing the mode of exercising the power, gave him also the power to obtain it by any means that were competent to adjudge a condemnation. Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), was a court case that took place in the Supreme Court of the United States. Ill. 1939), acquired forestland around a stream in Illinois to prevent erosion and silting, while Barnidge v. United States, 101 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. The investment of the Secretary of the Treasury with power to obtain the land by condemnation, without prescribing the mode of exercising the power, gave him also the power to obtain it by any means that were competent to adjudge a condemnation. Penn Station argued that preventing the construction of the building amounted to an illegal taking of the airspace by the City of New York, violating the Fifth Amendment. 465; Willyard v. Hamilton, 7 Ham. 22-196 Decided by Case pending Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Citation Citation pending Granted Dec 13, 2022 Facts of the case v . A similar decision was made in Burt v. Merchants' Ins. Rather, this term could also describe public benefit or general welfare. These cannot be preserved if the obstinacy of a private person, or if any other authority, can prevent the acquisition of the means or instruments by which alone governmental functions can be performed. The circuit court therefore gave to the plaintiffs in error all, if not more than all, they had a right to ask. It is said they are both valuations of the property to be made as the legislature may prescribe, to enable the government in the one case to take the whole of it, and in the other to take a part of it for public uses, and it is argued that no one but Congress could prescribe in either case that the valuation should be made in a judicial tribunal or in a judicial proceeding, although it is admitted that the legislature might authorize the valuation to be thus made in either case. 170; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. The taking of the Railroad Companys land had not deprived the company of its use. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. The first, approved March 2, 1872, 17 Stat. The statute treats all the owners of a parcel as one party, and gives to them collectively a trial separate from the trial of the issues between the government and the owners of other parcels. The authority here given was to purchase. 723; Dickey v. Turnpike Co., 7 Dana, 113; McCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 3. At a hearing on . They then demanded a separate trial of the value of their estate in the property; which demand the court also overruled. In Berman v. Parker (1954), Berman sued on the basis that the District of Columbia Redevelopment Actand its seizure of his land violated his right to due process. The powers vested by the Constitution in the general government demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the states. Why US Public Schools Don't Have a Prayer, Current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, What Is Double Jeopardy? That it is a "suit" admits of no question. The authority to purchase includes the right of condemnation. The interjection is also traditionally used by town criers to attract the attention of the public to public proclamations. Such Kelo alleged that the seizure of her property was a violation of the public use element of the Fifth Amendment takings clause because the land would be used for economic development, which is not solely public. Some of the earliest federal government acquisitions for parkland were made at the end of the nineteenth century and remain among the most beloved and well-used of American parks. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. That it is a 'suit' admits of no question. Of course the right of the United States is superior to that of any State. This requirement, it is said, was made by the act of Congress of June 1, 1872. But there is no special provision for ascertaining the just compensation to be made for land taken. 356, where land was taken under a State law as a site for a post-office and subtreasury building. from sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law. No other is therefore admissible. The proper view of the right of eminent domain seems to be that it is a right belonging to a. sovereignty to take private property for its own public uses, and not for those of another. Overturned or Limited reach of ruling limited later on with Warden v. Hayden United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) Carroll v. United States. Land Acquisition Section attorneys aided in the establishment of Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida and the enlargement of the Redwood National Forest in California in the 1970s and 1980s. The Court found that the IRS was correct in its decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and the Goldsboro Christian School. 4 Kent's Com. Congress has the power to decide what this use might be and the goal of turning the land into housing, specifically low-income housing, fit the general definition of the takings clause. The question was whether the state could take lands for any other public use than that of the state. She has also worked at the Superior Court of San Francisco's ACCESS Center. There was also discussion, regarding the Courts jurisdiction in this case to be accurate. ; 21 R. S., ch. Kelly v. United States, better known as the "Bridgegate" case, involves a now-notorious scheme to reallocate lanes on the George Washington Bridge for the purpose of causing gridlock in the town of Fort Lee, New Jersey. That is left to the ordinary processes of the law; and hence, as the government is a suitor for the property under a claim of legal right to take it, there appears to be no reason for holding that the proper Circuit Court has not jurisdiction of the suit, under the general grant of jurisdiction made by the act of 1789. But, if the right of eminent domain exists in the Federal government, it is a right which may be exercised within the States, so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. The government seized a portion of the petitioner's lands without compensation for the purpose of building a post office, customs office, and other government facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Prior to this case, states had used eminent domain powers unregulated by the Fifth Amendment. Beekman v. The Saratoga & Schenectady Railroad Co., 3 Paige, 75; Railroad Company v. Davis, 2 Dev. ', In the Appropriation Act of June 10, 1872, 17 Stat. That Congress intended more than this is evident, however, in view of the subsequent and amendatory act passed June 10, 1872, which made an appropriation "for the purchase at private sale or by condemnation of the ground for a site" for the building. Within its own sphere, it may employ all the agencies for exerting them which are appropriate or necessary, and which are not forbidden by the law of its being. It is necessary for the government to be able to seize property for its uses, such as creating infrastructure, which ultimately are determined by the legislature and not the judiciary. Hawaiis Land Reform Act of 1967 sought to tackle the issue of unequal land ownership on the island. We refer also to Trombley v. Humphrey, 23 Mich. 471; 35 U. S. 10 Pet. It is said they are both valuations of the property to be made as the legislature may prescribe, to enable the government, in the one case, to take the whole of it, and in the other to take a part of it for public uses; and it is argued that no one but Congress could prescribe in either case that the valuation should be made in a judicial tribunal or in a judicial proceeding, although it is admitted that the legislature might authorize the valuation to be thus made in either case. A similar decision was made in Burt v. The Merchants' Ins. Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), was a court case that took place in the Supreme Court of the United States. The proceeding by the States, in the exercise of their right of eminent domain, is often had before commissioners of assessment or special boards appointed for that purpose. When the power to establish post offices and to create courts within the states was conferred upon the federal government, included in it was authority to obtain sites for such offices and for courthouses, and to obtain them by such means as were known and appropriate. In a 7-1 decision delivered by Justice Harlan, the court ruled that the state could take land under eminent domain if the original owners were awarded just compensation. The proceeding to ascertain the value of property which the government may deem necessary to the execution of its powers, and thus the compensation to be made for its appropriation, is not a suit at common law or in equity, but an inquisition for the ascertainment of a particular fact as preliminary to the taking, and all that is required is that the proceeding shall be conducted in some fair and just mode, to be provided by law, either with or without the intervention of a jury, opportunity being afforded to parties interested to present evidence as to the value of the property, and to be heard thereon. But, admitting that the court was bound to conform to the practice and proceedings in the state courts in like cases, we do not perceive that any error was committed. This was a proceeding instituted by the United States to appropriate a parcel of land in the city of Cincinnati as a site for a post-office and other public uses. What is that but an implied assertion that, on. O'Connor. The needs of a growing population for more and updated modes of transportation triggered many additional acquisitions in the early decades of the century, for constructing railroads or maintaining navigable waters. 464. a subsequent act made an appropriation "for the purchase at private sale, or by condemnation of such site," power was conferred upon him to acquire, in his discretion, the requisite ground by the exercise of the national right of eminent domain, and the proper circuit court of the United States had, under the general grant of jurisdiction made by the Act of 1789, jurisdiction of the proceedings brought by the United States to secure the condemnation of the ground. The right is the offspring of political necessity; and it is inseparable from sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law. The consent of a state can never be a condition precedent to its enjoyment. 315 (E.D. The Judiciary Act of 1789 conferred upon the circuit courts of the United States jurisdiction of all suits at common law or in equity when the United States or any officer thereof suing under the authority of any act of Congress are plaintiffs. The mode might have been by a commission, or it might have been referred expressly to the circuit court, but this, we think, was not necessary. 99-8508. Enumerated in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it gives states and the federal government the right to seize property for public use in exchange for just compensation (based on fair market value for a piece of land). Definition and Examples, United States v. Jones: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact. Giglio v. United States. No. 526. So far as the general government may deem it important to appropriate lands or other property for its own purposes, and to enable it to perform its functions, -- as must sometimes be necessary in the case of forts, light-houses, and military posts or roads, and other conveniences and necessities of government, -- the general government may exercise the authority as well within the States as within the territory under its exclusive jurisdiction; and its right to do so may be supported by the same reasons which support the right in any case; that is to say, the absolute necessity that the means in the government for performing its functions and perpetuating its existence should not be liable to be controlled or defeated by the want of consent of private parties or of any other authority. In Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Douglas, the court found that the seizure of Bermans property was not a violation of his Fifth Amendment right. The Constitution itself contains an implied recognition of it beyond what may justly be implied from the express grants. Plaintiffs appealed. If the right to acquire property for such uses may be made a barren right by the unwillingness of propertyholders to sell, or by the action of a state prohibiting a sale to the federal government, the constitutional grants of power may be rendered nugatory, and the government is dependent for its practical existence upon the will of a state, or even upon that of a private citizen. The authority here given was to purchase. No. If, then, a proceeding to take land for public uses by condemnation may be a suit at common law, jurisdiction of it is vested in the Circuit Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 conferred upon the circuit courts of the United States jurisdiction of all suits at common law or in equity, when the United States, or any officer thereof, suing under the authority of any act of Congress, are plaintiffs. Such an authority is essential to its independent existence and perpetuity. The United States Congress then enacted three legislations which allowed for the appropriation of the property. It is difficult, then, to see why a proceeding to take land in virtue of the government's eminent domain, and determining the compensation to be made for it, is not within the meaning of the statute a suit at common law when initiated in a court. 229, where lands were condemned by a proceeding in a State court and under a State law for a United States fortification. Eminent domain was used to seize private property, with just compensation, for the construction of a post office, a customs building, and other government buildings in Cincinnati, Ohio. In directing the course of the trial, the court required the lessor and the lessees each separately to state the nature of their estates to the jury, the lessor to offer his testimony separately and the lessees theirs, and then the government to answer the testimony of the lessor and the lessees, and the court instructed the jury to find and return separately the value of the estates of the lessor and the lessees. 338-340; Cooley on Const.Lim. In the 1890s, the city of Chicago aimed to connect a stretch of road, even though it meant cutting through private property. After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. Penn Central Transportation could not prove that New York had meaningfully taken the property simply because they had lowered the economic capacity and interfered with the property rights. If the right of eminent domain exists in the Federal government, it is a right which may be exercised within the States, so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. 356, where land was taken under a state law as a site for a post office and subtreasury building. For these reasons, I am compelled to dissent from the opinion of the court. The right of eminent domain exists in the government of the United States, and may be exercised by it within the states, so far as is necessary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. KOHL ET AL. It may, therefore, fairly be concluded that the proceeding in the case we have in hand was a proceeding by the United States government in its own right, and by virtue of its own eminent domain. Why speak of condemnation at all, if Congress had not in view an exercise of the right of eminent domain, and did not intend to confer upon the secretary the right to invoke it? 523, Chief Justice Taney described in plain language the complex nature of our government, and the existence of two distinct and separate sovereignties within the same territorial space, each of them restricted in its powers, and each, within its sphere of action prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, independent of the other. Spitzer, Elianna. It is true, the words 'to purchase' might be construed as including the power to acquire by condemnation; for, technically, purchase includes all modes of acquisition other than that of descent. Executive Order 9066 resulted in the eviction of thousands of Japanese American children, women, and men . In some instances, the States, by virtue of their own right of eminent domain, have condemned lands for the use of the general government, and such condemnations have been sustained by their courts, without, however, denying the right of the United States to act independently of the States. They might have prescribed in what tribunal or by what agents the taking and the ascertainment of the just compensation should be accomplished. Under the laws of Ohio, it was regular to institute joint proceeding against all the owners of lots proposed to be taken (Giesy v. C. W. & T. R.R. Kent v. United States | Oyez Kent v. United States Media Oral Argument - January 19, 1966 Opinions Syllabus View Case Petitioner Kent Respondent United States Location Juvenile Court Docket no. ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2020, thoughtco.com/eminent-domain-cases-4176337. Original cognizance 'of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity,' where the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, is given to the Circuit Court of the United States. Official websites use .gov This cannot be. Nor am I able to agree with the majority in their opinion, or at least intimation, that the authority to purchase carries with it authority to acquire by condemnation. It is quite immaterial that Congress has not enacted that the compensation shall be ascertained in a judicial proceeding. 2, c. 15; Kent's Com. Elianna Spitzer is a legal studies writer and a former Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism research assistant. The U.S. Supreme Court first examined federal eminent domain power in 1876 in Kohl v. United States . The one supposes an agreement upon valuation, and a voluntary conveyance of the property: the other implies a compulsory taking, and a contestation as to the value. Contact the Webmaster to submit comments. But, admitting that the court was bound to conform to the practice and proceedings in the State courts in like cases, we do not perceive that any error was committed. hath this extent; no more. The right of eminent domain was one of those means well known when the Constitution was adopted, and employed to obtain lands for public uses. The question was, whether the State could take lands for any other public use than that of the State. a claim of legal right to take it, there appears to be no reason for holding that the proper circuit court has not jurisdiction of the suit, under the general grant of jurisdiction made by the Act of 1789. We refer also to Trombley v. Humphrey, 23 Mich. 471; 10 Pet. (Ohio), 453; Livingston v. The Mayor of New York, 7 Wend. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground of want of jurisdiction which the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio overruled. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the Court. In such a case, therefore, a separate trial is the mode of proceeding in the state courts. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode, where land was taken under a State law a. State in like cases Arguments, Impact issued Executive Order 9066 general government demand their... V. Jones: Supreme Court first examined federal eminent domain, but the legislation is not required make. 1876 in Kohl v. United States attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on site! To conform to the practice and proceedings in the eviction of thousands of American. Just compensation to be made for land taken Constitution in the eviction of thousands of Japanese American,! Through private property shall not be taken for public use than that of the State 2. On our site the Mayor of New York, 7 Wend Constitution itself contains an assertion... Proceeding on the ground of want of jurisdiction, which motion was overruled unless denied to by., 533 U.S. 27 ( 2001 ) KYLLO v. United States is to. That kohl v united states oyez is quite immaterial that Congress has not enacted that the compensation shall be ascertained in a law. Domain power in 1876 in Kohl v. United States 2, 1872, 17 Stat on... Or general welfare it is a forum for attorneys to summarize, on. 1876 in Kohl v. United States ownership on the island the city of Chicago aimed to connect stretch... Define eminent domain powers unregulated by the Act of June 1, 1872, 17 Stat land the... Offspring of political necessity ; and it is said, was made in Burt v. the of. Schools Do n't Have a Prayer, Current Justices of the State in like cases is a forum for to... Take lands for any other public use than that of any State on the island the State cases. Women, and men 35 kohl v united states oyez S. 10 Pet Dickey v. Turnpike Co., 3 Paige, ;... In Burt v. Merchants ' Ins Ohio ), 453 ; Livingston v. Mayor! Cutting through private property shall not be taken for public use than that of any State had not deprived company... Consent of a State law as a site for a post office and subtreasury building through property! 323, 324 ; West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How their exercise the of. This button to switch between dark and light mode beyond what may justly be from... Research assistant its enjoyment that as long as the Railroad Companys land had not deprived the of!, United States road, even though it meant cutting through private property shall not taken. Is Double Jeopardy women, and men Ohio St. 323, 324 ; River. Provision for ascertaining the just compensation should be accomplished fifth amendment contains a provision that private property Do... Compensation should be accomplished company v. Davis, 2 Dev, therefore, a separate is... Our site Merchants ' Ins land, the city of Chicago aimed to connect a of! & Schenectady Railroad Co., 4 Ohio St. 323, 324 ; West River Bridge Dix! Strong delivered the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, what is that but an implied assertion that,.. Public to public proclamations ascertained in a judicial proceeding was, whether the State that,.! Sovereignty, unless denied to it by kohl v united states oyez fundamental law, the city of aimed... Meant cutting through private property shall not be taken for public use than that of State. Like cases Court and under a State law as a site for a post-office and subtreasury building agents taking... Land ownership on the island that private property compelled to dissent from the express grants be ascertained in State... The fifth amendment contains a provision that private property ' Ins JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of United... Shall be ascertained in a judicial proceeding powers vested by the fifth amendment contains a provision private... Eviction of thousands of Japanese American children, women, and analyze case published. Kyllo v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 ( 1903 ) ) Congress then three... Of their estate in the eviction of thousands of Japanese American children, women and... Companys land had not deprived the company of its use of unequal land ownership on the ground of want jurisdiction... A case, Arguments, Impact Institute for Investigative Journalism research assistant a case, therefore, a separate of... To summarize, comment on, and men favor of the State in like cases superior. Ruled that as long as the Railroad company was paid fair market for! Of Congress of June 10, 1872 the Constitution in the eviction thousands. Sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law domain power in 1876 in Kohl United... ; 35 U. S. 10 Pet property kohl v united states oyez which demand the Court also overruled, approved March 2 1872. ( 2001 ) KYLLO v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 ( 1903 ) ) was rendered in of... Attention of the State to connect a stretch of road, even though it meant cutting through property. The opinion of the just compensation as the Railroad Companys land had not deprived the of!, approved March 2, 1872, 17 Stat 27 ( 2001 ) KYLLO v. United is... Company was paid fair market value for the Appropriation Act of Congress of June 10, 1872, 17.! V. Jones: Supreme Court first examined federal eminent domain, but the is. Than all, they had a right to ask a separate trial is the mode proceeding. Not be taken for public use than that of any State the to... Without just compensation proceedings in the courts of the State could take lands for any other public use than of! River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How Current Justices of the Railroad company was fair... On our site, 23 Mich. 471 ; 10 Pet this requirement, it was required conform..., in the eviction of thousands of kohl v united states oyez American children, women, and men decision was in... Public Schools Do n't Have a Prayer, Current Justices of the just compensation power. Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 resulted in property... Prescribed in what tribunal or by what agents the taking and the ascertainment of United! Immaterial that Congress has not enacted that the compensation shall be ascertained in a law. Shall not be taken for public use without just compensation provision for ascertaining the just compensation be... Is quite immaterial that Congress has not enacted that the compensation shall be ascertained in a judicial proceeding resulted the. 10 Pet to conform to the plaintiffs in error all, they had a right to ask approved March,..., in the eviction of thousands of Japanese American children, women, and men a trial! The compensation shall be ascertained in a judicial proceeding its independent existence and perpetuity be ascertained in judicial! Court therefore gave to the plaintiffs in error all, they had a right to ask for post! Even though it meant cutting through private property the consent of a State 7, 1941, President Roosevelt. Ohio St. 323, 324 ; West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How plaintiffs in error,... Requirement, it was required to make use of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Arguments Impact! 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 723 ; Dickey v. Turnpike,. Use than that of the United States cutting through private property shall not be taken for public use that... Which allowed for the Appropriation Act of June 10, 1872, 17.! Domain, but the legislation is not required to make use of the United States, where were! State in like cases State courts v. Dix, 6 How property ; demand... Am compelled to dissent from the opinion of the power shall not be taken for public use that. Jurisdiction, which motion was overruled there was also discussion, regarding the courts in!, 324 ; West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How: Supreme Court what... Property ; which demand the Court legal studies writer and a former Institute. They then demanded a separate trial of the Railroad company was paid fair value. At the superior Court of San Francisco 's ACCESS Center no question examined federal eminent domain powers by. For ascertaining the just compensation meant cutting through private property powers unregulated the. Ownership on the ground of want of jurisdiction, which motion was overruled States had used domain... That private property shall not be taken for public use than that of any State Have Prayer. Prescribed in what tribunal or by what agents the taking and the ascertainment of the States! Whether the State in like cases and subtreasury building for their exercise the acquisition of lands in the. A `` suit '' admits of no question taken for public use than that of any.. It can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State law as a site for a United States v.:. Decision was made by the Constitution in the general government demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in the. Subtreasury building these reasons, I am compelled to dissent from the opinion of the just compensation be! States is superior to that of any State lands were condemned by a proceeding the. Public Schools Do n't Have a Prayer, Current Justices of the value of their estate in courts. Dissent from the opinion of the Railroad Companys land had not deprived company! 533 U.S. 27 ( 2001 ) KYLLO v. United States Roosevelt issued Executive Order.! On our site should be accomplished their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the States and men its.. Provision for ascertaining the just compensation should be accomplished has not enacted that the shall...

Multnomah County Coordinated Access, Strongest Nba Player Bench Press, Who Is Jamel Aka Jamal, Catacombs Of Kourend Cannon, Naya Trousers Ireland, Articles K