opinion: GEORGIA KAOLIN CO. v. UNITED STATES.
  No. 14592.
  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
  June 23, 1954.
  Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1954.
  H. D. Russell, Macon, Ga., Walter J. Blenko, Pittsburgh, Pa., John B. Harris, John B. Harris, Jr., Macon, Ga., for appellant.
  Roger P. Marquis, Attys., D. of J., Fred W. Smith, Washington, D. C., J. Edward Williams, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Jack J. Gautier, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., Perry W. Norton, Asst Atty. Gen., Frank O. Evans, U. S. Atty Macon, Ga., for appellee.
  Before HOLMES and STRUM, Circuit Judges, and THOMAS, District Judge.
  HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
  This is an action against the United States for damages that resulted to appellant’s lands while occupied by the Government and used as a part of Camp Wheeler in Twiggs County, Georgia, which camp was utilized in the training of soldiers during World War II. The jurisdiction of the court below rested upon a special jurisdictional act of June 19, 1948, 62 Stat. 566. The jurisdiction of this court rests upon Section 1291, Title 28 of the U.S.Code.
  In October, 1940, the appellant leased to the City of Macon, Georgia, two certain parcels of land. At the time of entering into the lease, it was understood between the parties thereto that the lease would be transferred to the United States and the lands used by it as a military training base. The contract of lease provided that the lessee would restore the premises to the same condition as that existing at the date of the lease, reasonable and ordinary wear and tear, and damage by the elements or by circumstances over which the lessee had no control, excepted; that all claims for damages to the leased premises were determinable according to the value thereof as of the date of the lease; that no such damage should be determined upon the basis of appreciated value occasioned by the use or development of said property or surrounding property by the lessee or sublessee; and that, if the same was transferred or sublet to the United States, the lessor would have the right to assert such claim for damages solely and exclusively against said sub-lessee.
  Under the transferred lease, the United States took possession of said property during the latter part of October, 1940, and retained and used the same until February 15, 1947, when the lease contract was duly terminated. This suit was filed against the United States on May 30, 1949, alleging that it had used the lands for a maneuver area and firing range, and had caused the property to become impregnated with live shells and dangerous explosives to such extent that the plaintiff could not thereafter use the lands for mining purposes. The appellant further alleged that it had acquired said property for mining kaolin thereon, and that the Government had breached its contract by failing to restore the premises to their same condition as when entered. It is conceded that both tracts of land were acquired for kaolin, that the appellant is in the kaolin business, and acquired these lands in the belief that they contained kaolin. The appellant’s evidence discloses that, in the particular section of Georgia wherein these lands are situated, the principal kaolin industry of the country exists and kaolin lands are very valuable.
  There is ample and substantial evidence in this record to support the district court’s findings of fact. The question of the measure of damages is one of law about which the parties sharply disagreed in the court below, and are still in disagreement. The appellant contends that it ought to be paid the full money value of the kaolin in the ground, arrived at in money per ton, on a comparable royalty basis; but we think that such a computation would involve too many conjectures, and too vague and contingent a method, to meet the reasonable certainty that the law requires in fixing damages for the breach of a contract. We agree with the appellee, as did the court below, that the tonnage and royalty basis for establishing damages to the appellant’s land was not the legal method, but that the value at the date of the lease, contemplated by the parties, was the market value for any and all purposes and uses to which the lands could legally be put; and that, while the fact that the lands contained kaolin should be given weight, it should not be considered apart from other proper elements of value. Their kaolin content was simply one of the many elements that went to make up the value of the lands at the time of the lease.
  It was conceded by the parties in the court below that the best and most valuable purpose for which the lands could be used, at the time of appellee’s acquirement thereof, was the mining of kaolin. They were located in a kaolin section, and were bought and sold as kaolin lands, albeit to some extent as a matter of speculation. In arriving at the amount to which the appellant was entitled because of the government’s breach of its contract to restore the lands to their former condition, the court below applied the same general principles as are applicable in condemnation cases, wherein the measure of compensation to be awarded the owner is the price which would be agreed upon at a voluntary sale between an owner, ready, able, and willing to sell, and a purchaser, ready, able, and willing to buy, both being duly informed. In other words, the applicable test is the fair market value. How market value is to be determined depends upon a number of circumstances. 156 A.L.R. 1416.
  In eminent domain proceedings, the existence of valuable mineral deposits in the condemned land constitutes an element which may be taken into consideration if and in so far as it influences the market value of the land. The reason for this rule is said to be that the measure of compensation in such cases is the market value of the land to bé condemned, taken as a whole and with due consideration of all the components that tend to make its market value. This rule has been applied to limestone deposits, gold ore, fire clay, coal, stone, and sand and gravel, 156 A.L.R. 1416— 1417; but there can be no recovery for both the value of the land and its mineral deposits as two separate items. Atlanta Terra Cotta Co. v. Georgia Ry. & Electric Co., 132 Ga. 537, 64 S.E. 563; U. S. v. 620.00 Acres of Land, etc., D.C., 101 F.Supp. 686; Orgel on Valuation, under Eminent Domain, page 544, rejecting the method of estimating the amount of stone in situ and multiplying this amount by a fixed price per unit; also citing Searle v. Lackawanna and Bloomsburg Railroad Company, 33 Pa. 57. In rejecting the method of multiplying the estimated amount of clay by a fixed price per unit, the conclusion is largely based on its speculativeness. In discussing this point, the court below said that whether or not the deposits would be mined and the royalties paid would depend upon the condition of the market, the uncertainty of the future, the demand for the product, “and many other elements, on and on, in the future.”
  Having concluded that the appellant was entitled to recover the difference between the value of the land at the time of the lease and its diminished value because of its use and the condition in which it was returned to the owner, the court below painstakingly endeavored to arrive at the fair market value of these lands as of the date of the lease in October, 1940, quoting from U. S. v. Savannah Shipyards, Inc., 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 863, upon the many elements that go to make up market value. We have carefully considered the court’s findings and conclusions in this respect, and deem them to be correct and sound. They are free from reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.