Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

com-

EMINENT DOMAIN.

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-Continued.

Damages-Continued.
Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Inconvenience. It is error for
Wolf (Ill.), 156 n.

court to instruct jury to give
Facts which jury may consider in damages for inconveniences,

assessing damages. Inconven. although they may be " largely
ient shape of land, liability of conjectural." Chicago & P. R.
stock to be killed, fires from Co. v. Hildebrand (111.), 145.
passing engines, and other in- Increased value of land owing to
convenience and annoyance.

construction of bulkhead by
Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. railroad company; considera-
Graney (I.), 149 n ; Same v. tion of. Harris v. Schuylkill R,
Nix (ill.), 150 n; Same v. Blume E. S. R. Co. (Pa.), 152 n.
(I11.), 150 n; Same v. Wolf (I11.), Independent trespasses
150 n.

mitted by company outside of
Fences. Additional fences as an land appropriated , landowner
element of damages. Newgass

cannot recover for. Leaven.
v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. worth, N. & S. R. Co. v. Herley
(Ark.), 152 n.

(Kan.), 153 n.
Consideration by jury of Interest on damages where com-
erection of fences and crossings pany has been in the enjoyment
by company. Instructions. of land. Newgass r. St. Louis
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. A. & T. R. Co. (Ark.), 168 n.
Baker (Mo.), 151 n.

Materials. Damages where land
Fencing right of way ; cost of, as

is condemned for purpose of
an element of damages, 174 n. obtaining earth and gravel,

When it is proper for jury to 149 n.
include in their verdict damages

instructions as to right of
for cost of fencing. Louisville railroad company to create nui.
St. L. & T. R. Co. v. Barrett sance on land taken for pur-
(Ky.), 169.

pose of obtaining, held errone-
Flooding land not taken: dam-

ous.

Chicago & P. R. Co. 7.
ages for

Injuries resulting Hildebrand (III.), 145.
from improper construction.

land taken for the purpose of
Newgass v. St. Louis, A. & T. obtaining. It is error for court
R. Co. (Ark.), 1531.

to instruct jury that company
Former trespass by company not will not be required to pay taxes

to be considered in estimating on land. Chicago & P. R. Co.
compensation. Canton, A. & v. Hildebrand (III.), 145.
N. R. Co. v. French (Miss.), Measure of damages is compen-
152 n.

sation for property taken and
Frightening horses. Liability of damages to residue. Colorado

teams to become frightened, M. R. Co, v. Brown (Colo.), 164.
and additional care required of

is value of land taken to-
landowner, does not, of itself, gether with difference between
constitute basis for special com- the value of the land not taken
pensation. Florence, E. & W. with the railroad on it and its
V. R. Co. v. Pember, (Kan.), value without the railroad.
151 n.

Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Asher
Improper construction of road or (Ky.), 168 n.
negligent management not to

Owner is entitled to fair
be considered. Louisville & N. market value of property at
R. Co. v. Asher (Ky.), 154 n.

time of taking. Payne v. Kan.
Improvements placed on land by sas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.
railroad before commencement

to land not taken is difference
of proceedings; value of, as an in market value before and
element of damages. San Fran-

after construction of road. Chi.
cisco & N. P. R. Co. v. Taylor cago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
(Cal.), 150 n; Newgass v. St. Eaton (I11.), 168 n.
Louis, A. & T. R. Co. (Ark.),

Rental value as measure of
151 n.

damages. Instructions. Bal-

[ocr errors]

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-- Continued.

trains, danger of accidents to
employes, and risk of fir from
locomotives may be considered.
Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v.

McGrew (Mo.), 131.
Overflow ; damages resulting

from. Amendment of articles
to show that overflow would be
prevented. Finding of jury.
Instructions. Chicago & İ. C.

R. Co. v. Hunter (Ind.), 168 n.
Particular advantages. Consid-

eration of special value of land
for particular purposes, 247 n.

of land such as site for ferry
landing must be considered.
Payne v. Kansas & A. V. R.

Co. (C. C.), 228.
Proper construction of the road ;

only damages resulting from,
should be given. Time
which damages should be con-
fined. Instructions. Chicago
& I. C. R. Co. v. Hunter (Ind.),

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-Continued.

timore & O. R. Co. v. Boyd

(Md.), 168 n.
Measure of damages. True test

is to take difference between
value of entire lot just be.
fore and after taking. What
values are to be considered in
this test. Harris v. Schuylkill
R. E. S. R. Co. (Pa.), 167 n.

· Value of entire tract should
be ascertained, and value of
tract after appropriation should
be deducted; difference is proper
compensation. Louisville & N.
R. Co. v. Ingram (Ky.), 167 n.
Mineral land. Condemnation of

right of way across land on
which coal mine is operated.
Damages for interruption of
business. Chicago, S. F. & C.
R. Co. v McGrew (Mo.), 131.

Company may show that
value of property is not totally
destroyed, and that mine can
still be operated by superstruc-
ture or other means. Chicago,
S. F. & C. R. Co. v. McGrew
(Mo.), 131.

Condemnation of placer min.
ing land. Instruction as to
damages owing to presence of
mineral. Twin Lakes, H. G.
M. S. v. Colorado M. R. Co.
(Colo.), 145 n.

condemnation of right of way
over, 144 n.
- Depreciation, and not full
value of switch, chute, pit top,
and other connections, should
be allowed. Chicago, S. F. &
C. R. Co. V. McGrew (Mo.),
131.

if abandoment of, is made
necessary its value should be
allowed, and not expense of
new one. Chicago, S. F. & C.

R. Co. v. McGrew (Mo.), 131.
Money ; compensation must be

made in. Defendant cannot be
required to accept license to go
on right of way. Release of
part of right of way. Chicago,
S. F. & C. R. Co. v. McGrew

(Mo.), 131.
Noise made by passing trains may

be considered as an element of
damages. Chicago, P. & St. L.

R. Co. v. Nix (111.), 151 n,
Number and speed of passing

153 n.
Railroad connection cut off ; dam.

ages for loss of business owing
to. Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co.
v. McGrew (Mo.), 131.

If the new road makes a
change necessary or a new con-
nection, reasonable expense
thereof should be allowed. Chi.
cago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v. Mc-

Grew (Mo.), 131.
Residue of premises ; declaration

of defendant's intention to re-
port damages to, does not pre-
vent recovery for. Colorado
M. R. Co. v. Brown (Colo.)

164.
Single tract of land. Additional

strip of land on one side of
track where it passes through
farm is "contiguous to that
part of farm on the other side of
the track. Chicago & P. R. Co.
v. Hildebrand (Ill.), 145.

Damages must be allowed
for injury to whole tract. Effect
of government subdivisions.
Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v.
Baker (Mo.), 149 n.

what is considered as. Con-
tiguous lands.

Leavenworth,
N. & S. R. Co. v. Wilkins (Kan.),
149 n.
Time as to which damages should

be assessed. Assessment should

EMINENT DOMAIN.

I EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-Continued.

Evidence-Continued.
be made as of the date of the M. R. Co. v. Brown (Colo.).
condemnation, and not as of the 164.
time of original wrongful entry. All evidence having bearing on
Texas, W. R. Co. v. Cave (Tex.), compensation for damages is
129 n ; San Antonio & A. P. R. admissible. Colorado M. R.
Co. v. Ruby (Tex.), 130 n ; New- Co. v. Brown (Colo.), 164.
gass v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Assessed value of land ; evidence
Co. (Ark.), 130 n.

as to. Estoppel of plaintiff who
Time of assessment. Evidence is one of assessors. Smith

as to value of property at time Pennsylvania S. V.R. Co. (Pa.),
of appeal trial admissible, and 193 1.
jury should assess damages Bona fide offers for land; evidence
accordingly. Georgia, S. & F. as to, admissible to prove value,
R. Co. v. Small (Ga.), 116.

Muller v. Southern Pac. B. R.
Damages should be assessed Co. (Cal.), 192 n.
in accordance with situation Buildings on land separated from
and conditions existing at time farm ; evidence as to. Chicago,
of appraisement. Twin Lakes, P. & St. L. R. Co. 7. Graney
H. G. M. S. v. Colorado M. R. (III.), 193 n.
Co. (Colo.), 131 n.

Cost of rebuilding tramway made
Question is immaterial when necessary by railroad track ;
it is undisputed that there was evidence as to, is admissible.
no change in occupation or Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. %.
value of property at different Wolf (III.), 192 1.
dates. Rees v. Schuylkill R. E. Danger to stock; reference by
S. R. Co. (Pa.), 131 n.

witnesses to, held harmless er.
· Rule where there has been ror, Chicago, P. & St. L. R.
wrongful entry, 128 n.

Co. v. Blume (Ill.), 192 n.
is date of taking by proper Discharge of sewage on land af.
legal proceedings, and not at fecting its value ; evidence as
time of previous wrongful en- to, inadmissible. Harris 7.
try. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Schuylkill R. E. S. R. Co. (Pa.),
Co. Randolph T. S. Co. 192 n.
(Mo.), 118.

Farming lands ; in condemna-
Value farming land if divided tion of, evidence is inadmissi-

into city lots should not be con- ble as to size, number, and
sidered by jury as an element value of city lots near by. Kan.
of damages. Kansas C. & T. sas C. & T.R. Co. r. Splitiog

R. Co. v. Splitlog (Kan.), 151 n. (Kan.), 191 n.
Verdict of jury awarding dam- Fences. Evidence as to damages

ages, sufficiency of. Failure to arising from railroad remaining
show finding as to benefits. unfenced held admissible. Chi-
Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Stark cago, P. & St. L. R. Co. 7.
(Colo.), 257 n.

Eaton (III.), 191 n.
Widening street. Damages to be Greater price where land is taken

allowed railroad which has con- without owner's consent ; eri-
structed enbankments, and dence as to. Chicago, P. & St.
bridge, and carried its track L. R. Co. v. Graney (Ill.), 192 n.
over such street. Kansas City Ice house ; construction of, by
v. Kansas City B. R. Co. (Mo.), railroad in place of one de-
157.

stroyed. Evidence as to use of
Evidence.

new ice house. Rees v. Schuyl.
Admissibility of estimates of wit- kill R. E. S. R. Co. (Pa.), 193 *

nesses as to amount of dam. Improvements on land ; evidence
ages, 187 n.

as to worth of, in estimating
Admission without objection. damages to land not taken. Chi.

Propriety of including damages cago, P. & St. L. R. Co. i.
in assessment cannot be ques- Eaton (III.), 1911.
tioned on appeal. Colorado Jury are presumed under proper

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Evidence-Continued.

instructions not to draw im.
proper inferences. Colorado M.

R. Co. v. Brown (Colo.), 164.
Lot abutting on street taken. Evi.
cence as to line of street.

Com-
mon reputation. Muller
Southern Pac. B. R. Co. (Cal.),

194 n.
Lots. Evidence as to how many

lots tract of land could be di-
vided into, inadmissible. Kan.
sas, C. & T.R. Co.v. Vickroy

(Kan.), 191 n.
Necessity for driving stock back-

ward and forward over track ;
evidence as to admissible. Chi.
cago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v.

Baker (Mo.). 191 n.
Opinions. Admissibility of evi-
dence as to how much tract of
land was damaged, held not er-
'roneous when considered with
instructions. Dallas & G. R.
Co. v. Chenault (Tex.), 187 n.

Allowing witness to state
amount of depreciation in value
of farm is erroneous, since this
is question for jury to deter-
mine. Chicago, K. & W. R.
Co. v. Muller (Kan.), 188.

Although witness cannot
state value absolutely, he may
give opinion where he is famil.
iar with surroundings. San An.
tonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Ruby
(Tex.), 183 n.

Competency of witness to
give opinion as to value. No
exact rule can be laid down.
Matter rests largely in discre-
tion of court. Montana R. Co.
v. Warren (U. S.), 194.

Competency of witness to
give opinion as to value of fruit
trees on land taken. Chicago,
K. & W. R. Co. v. Mouriquand
(Kan.), 184 n.

Competency of witness to
give opinion as to proportion of
land subject to overflow. Chi.
cago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Donel.
son (Kan.), 184 n.

Competency of witnesses to
give opinion evidence as to
value of land, 183 n.

Consideration to be given by
jury to opinions of witnesses,
181 n.

Evidence as to injury to land

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Evidence-Continued.

not taken. Opinion of witness
not an expert. Chicago, P. &

St. L, R. Co. v. Nix (111.), 185 n.
Opinions. Evidenceas to amount
of damages sustained. Qualifi-
cation or witness to testify. Chi-
cago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Easley
(Kan.), 183 n.

Expert in giving evidence as
to value volunteered statement
as to amount of damages sus-
tained, held error for the court
to refuse to strike out. Chica.
go, K. & W. R. Co. v. Muiler
(Kan.), 188.

Expert. Farmer cannot
make comparison of values as
expert where the land is injur.
iously affected by exposure to
fire from locomotives. Penn-
sylvania, P. & B. R. Co. v.
Root (N. J.), 181.

Expert; farmer is, with re.
spect to value of agricultural
lands before laying of road as
compared with their value af.
terwards. Pennsylvania, P. &
B. R. Co. v. Root (N. J.), 181.

Expert. No inflexible rule
can be laid down as to how much
witness must know before he
can testify as to value. Court
must

determine competency.
Papooshek v. Winona & St. P.
R. Co. (Minn.), 183 n.

Expert; qualification of wit-
ness to speak as. Form of ob-
jection to question.

Evans-
ville & R. R. Co. v. Swift (Ind.),
184 n.

Expert testimony as to value
of land. Details on which opin-
ions are founded.

Harris v.
Schuylkill R. E. S. R. Co. (Pa.),
185 n.

giving in lump amount of
damages which will be sustain.
ed is not admissible as evidence.
Chicago, K. & N. R. Co. v.
Neiman (Kan.), 186.

of witness as to value of lots
not deemed conclusive, but
jury may consider such opinion
in connection with other testi.
mony. Chicago, K. & W. R.
Co. v. Drake (Kan.), 178.

Right of witness to testify di-
rectly as to amount of damages
sustained. Leavenworth N. &

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Evidence-Continued.

S. R. Co. v. Herley (Kan.),

187 n.
Opinions. Value of property.
When value of property adjoin-
ing may be inquired into. Kan-
sas C. & T. R. Co. v. Vickroy
(Kan.), 185 n.

Value of " prospect" in min.
eral lands taken by railroad;
opinion as to, admissible in ev.
idence. Montana R. Co. v.
Warren (U. S.), 194.
- Value of trees growing on
land; opinion evidence as to.
Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Graney (Ill.), 185 n.
- Witness may express opinion
as to damages including value
as to portion taken and damage
done to remainder. Navada &
M. R. Co. v. DeLissa (M.),

187 n.
Price of property. Evidence as

what owner would sell property
for properly refused. Auman
v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co.

(Pa.), 192 n.
Price paid for land by landowner;

evidence as to, not admissible.
San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v.

Ruby (Tex.), 192 n.
Value of land before and after

road crossed it; evidence as to,
is admissible. Evansville & R.

R. Co. v. Swift (Ind.), 193 n.
View hy jury of land taken. In-

struction to estimate damages
from the evidence. Flower v.
Baltimore & P. R. Co. (Pa.)

168 n.
Parties.
Executrix; action by, to recover

damages to her estate. Chat.
tanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Mc-

Landon (Ga.), 205 n.
Interest in land; party must show

before he is entitled to recover.
Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v.
Easley (Kan.), 205 n.

Sufficiency of title by adverse
possession to maintain petition.
Andrew v. Nantasket B. R. Co.

(Mass.), 205 n.
Misjoinder of causes of action for

injuries to land owned by dif.
ferent parties. Leavenworth,
N. & S. R. Co. v. Wilkins

(Kan.), 205_n.
Mistake. Equity will relieve

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Parties-Continued.

company from consequences of
mistake whereby they omit to
make mortgagee a party. De-
cree in such a case. Calumet

R.R. Co. 2. Brown (III.), 199.
Mortgage. Land subject to sep-

arate mortgages; single award
in favor of landowner. Chica-
go, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Baker

(Mo.), 205 n.
Mortgagee of land taken is a nec.

essary party. Calumet R, R.

Co. v. Brown (Ill.), 199.
Mortgaged property; condemna.

tion of, 205 n.
Receivers as parties to action to

try title to land. San Antonio
&'A, P. R. Co. v. Ruby (Tex.),

205 n.
Public Lands.
Mining claim; condemnation of

surface over. Evidence. Rights
of owners to surface, Colorado
M. R. Co. v. Bowles (Colo.),

268 n.
Pre-emption claim; condemnation

of. Right of way through lund
of claimant whose entry has
been suspended. Colorado M.

R. Co. v. Bowles (Colo.. 268 n.
Right of way across public land.

Judicial notice of company's
right. Map of right of way.
McKeoin v. Northern P. R. Co.

(C. C.), 269 n.
Procedure.
Abandonment. Company may

abandon purpose of taking
property even

after county
court has entered judgment as.
sessing damages. Manionu,
Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co.
(Ky.), 107.

Right of railroad company to
abandon its purpose of taking

property, 111 n.
Action on award appraising dam-

ages. Sufficiency of complaint.
Negativing defense. McKeoin
v. Northern P. R. Co. (C. C.),

269 n.
Agreement of parties. Petition
need not aver a failure to agree,
since the presumption is that
they cannot agree. Farnsworth

v. Lime Rock R. Co. (Me.), 64.
- Prior negotiation for land as

a prerequisite to right to con-
demn. What is a sufficiens

[ocr errors]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »