Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

com-

cannot

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages Continued.

Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.

Wolf (III.), 156 n.
Facts which jury may consider in
assessing damages. Inconven-
ient shape of land, liability of
stock to be killed, fires from
passing engines, and other in-
convenience and annoyance.
Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Graney (111.), 149 n; Same v.
Nix (111.), 150 n; Same v. Blume
(111.), 150 n; Same v. Wolf (Ill.),

150 n.
Fences. Additional fences as an

element of damages. Newgass
v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co.
(Ark.), 152 n.

Consideration by jury of
erection of fences and crossings
by company.

Instructions.
Chicago, M. & St. P. R, Co. v.

Baker (Mo.), 151 n.
Fencing right of way ; cost of, as
an element of damages, 174 n.

When it is proper for jury to
include in their verdict damages
for cost of fencing. Louisville
St. L. & T. R. Co. v. Barrett

(Ky.), 169.
Flooding land not taken; dam-
ages for.

Injuries resulting
from improper construction.
Newgass . St. Louis, A. & T.

R. Co. (Ark.), 153 11.
Former trespass by company not

to be considered in estimating
compensation. Canton, A. &
N. R. Co. v. French (Miss.),

152 n.
Frightening horses. Liability of

teams to become frightened,
and additional care required of
landowner, does not, of itself,
constitute basis for special com-
pensation. Florence, E. & W.
V. R. Co. v. Pember, (Kan.),

151 n.
Improper construction of road or

negligent management not to
be considered. Louisville & N.

R. Co. 7. Asher (Ky.), 154 n.
Improvements placed on land by

railroad before commencement
of proceedings; value of, as an
element of damages. San Fran-
cisco & N. P. R. Co. v. Taylor
(Cal.), 150 n; Newgass v. St.
Louis, A. & T. R. Co. (Ark.),
151 n.

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages- Continued.
Inconvenience. It is error for

court to instruct jury to give
damages for inconveniences,
although they may be " largely
conjectural." Chicago & P. R.

Co. v. Hildebrand (III.), 145.
Increased value of land owing to

construction of bulkhead by
railroad company : considera-
tion of. Harris v. Schuyikill R.

E. S. R. Co. (Pa.), 152 1.
Independent tres passes

mitted by company outside of
land appropriated ; landowner

recover for. Leaven.
worth, N. & S. R. Co. v. Herley

(Kan.), 153 n.
Interest on damages where com-

pany has been in the enjoyment
of land. Newgass v. St. Louis

A. & T. R. Co. (Ark.), 168 n.
Materials. Damages where land

is condemned for purpose of
obtaining earth and gravel,
149 n.

instructions as to right of
railroad company to create nui.
sance on land taken for pur-
pose of obtaining, held errone.

Chicago & P. R. Co. i.
Hildebrand (III.), 145.

land taken for the purpose of
obtaining. It is error for court
to instruct jury that company
will not be required to pay taxes
on land. Chicago & P. R. Co.

v. Hildebrand (I11.), 145.
Measure of damages is compen.

sation for property taken and
damages to residue. Colorado
M. R. Co. v. Brown (Colo.), 164.

is value of land taken 10-
gether with difference between
the value of the land not taken
with the railroad on it and its
value without the railroad.
Louisville & N. R. Co. 2. Asher
(Ky.), 168 n.

Owner is entitled to fair
market value of property at
time of taking. Payne v. Kan-
sas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C., 228.

to land not taken is difference
in market value before and
after construction of road. Chi-
cago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Eaton (I11.), 168 n.

Rental value as measure of
damages. Instructions. Bal-

[ocr errors]

.

10

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-Continued.

trains, danger of accidents to
employes, and risk of fire from
locomotives mav 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 & i. 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 (I11.), 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.

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. 1 admissible. Colorado M. R.
Co. v. Ruby (Tex.), 130 n ; New- Co., 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.

1

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. v. 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. 4.
value of property at different Wolf (Ill.), 192 1.
dates. Rees a. 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 (I11.), 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
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 of 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. v. Splitlog

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. i.
(Colo.), 257 n.

Eaton (I11.), 191 .
Widening street. Damages to be Greater price where land is taken

allowed railroad which has con- without owner's consent ; evi-
structed enbankments, and dence as to. Chicago, P. & St.
bridge, and carried its track L. R. Co. v. Graney (11!.), 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.), 1931

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. r.
in assessment cannot be ques- Eaton (III.), 191n.
tioned on appeal. Colorado Jury are presumed under proper

EMINENT DOMAIN.

| EMINENT DOMAIN.
Evidence- Continued.

Evidence-Continued.
instructions not to draw im-

not taken. Opinion of witness
proper inferences. Colorado M.

not an expert. Chicago, P. &
R. Co. v. Brown (Colo.), 164.

St. L. R. Co. v. Nix (111.), 185 n.
Lot abutting on street taken. Evi. Opinions. Evidenceas to amount
dence as to line of street. Com-

of damages sustained. Qualifi-
mon reputation. Muller 71.

cation or witness to testify. Chi-
Southern Pac. B. R. Co. (Cal.), cago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Easley
194 n.

(Kan.), 183 n.
Lors. Evidence as to how many

Expert in giving evidence as
lots tract of land could be di. to value volunteered statement
vided into, inadmissible. Kan. as to amount of damages sus.
sas, C. & T. R. Co. v. Vickroy tained, held error for the court
(Kan.), 191 n.

to refuse to strike out. Chica-
Necessity for driving stock back- go, K. & W. R. Co. v. Muiler

ward and forward over track ; (Kan.), 188.
evidence as to admissible. Chi.

Expert. Farmer cannot
cago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v.

make comparison of values as
Baker (Mo.). 191 n.

expert where the land is injur.
Opinions. Admissibility of evi. iously affected by exposure to
dence as to how much tract of

fire from locomotives. Penn-
land was damaged, held not er. sylvania, P. & B. R. Co. v.
'roneous when considered with Root (N. J.), 181.
instructions. Dallas & G, R.

Expert; farmer is, with re-
Co. v. Chenault (Tex.), 187 n.

spect to value of agricultural
Allowing witness to state

lands before laying of road as
amount of depreciation in value compared with their value af.
of farm is erroneous, since this terwards. Pennsylvania, P. &
is question for jury to deter- B. R. Co. v. Root (N. J.), 181.
mine. Chicago, K. & W. R.

Expert. No inflexible rule
Co. v. Muller (Kan.), 188.

can be laid down as to how much
Although witness cannot

witness must know before he
state value absolutely, he may can testify as to value. Court
give opinion where he is famil. must determine competency.
iar with surroundings. San An- Papooshek v. Winona & St. P.
tonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Ruby R. Co. (Minn.), 183 n.
(Tex.), 183 n.

Expert; qualification of wit.
Competency of witness to ness to speak as. Form of ob-
give opinion as to value. No

jection to question. Evans-
exact rule can be laid down. ville & R. R. Co. v. Swift (Ind.),
Matter rests largely in discre- 184 n.
tion of court. Montana R. Co.

Expert testimony as to value
v. Warren (U. S.), 194.

of land. Details on which opin-
Competency of witness to ions are founded.

Harris v.
give opinion as to value of fruit Schuylkill R. E. S. R. Co. (Pa.),
trees on land taken. Chicago, 185 n.
K. & W. R. Co. v. Mouriquand

giving in lump amount of
(Kan.), 184 n.

damages which will be sustain.
Competency of witness to ed is not admissible as evidence.
give opinion as to proportion of Chicago, K. & N. R. Co. v.
land subject to overflow. Chi. Neiman (Kan.), 186.
cago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Donel.

of witness as to value of lots
son (Kan.), 184 n.

not deemed

conclusive, but
Competency of witnesses to jury may consider such opinion
give opinion evidence as to

in connection with other testi-
value of land, 183 n.

mony. Chicago, K. & W. R.
Consideration to be given by Co. v. Drake (Kan.), 178.
jury to opinions of witnesses,

Right of witness to testify di-
181 n.

rectly as to amount of damages
- Evidence as to injury to land sustained. Leavenworth N. &
EMINENT DOMAIN.

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Evidence- Continued.

Parties-(ontinued.
S. R. Co. v. Herley (Kan.), company from consequences of
187 n.

mistake whereby they omit to
Opinions. Value of

property. make mortgagee a party. De-
When value of property adjoin-

cree in such a case. Calumet
ing may be inquired into. Kan- R. R. Co. 7". Brown (11.), 199
sas C. & T. R. Co. i'. Vickroy Mortgage. Land subject to sep-
(Kan.), 185 n.

arate mortgages; single award
Value of prospect" in min. in favor of landowner. Chica-
eral lands taken by railroad; go, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Baker
opinion as to, admissible in ev- (Mo.), 205 n.
idence. Montana R. Co. v. Mortgagee of land taken is a nec.
Warren (l'. S.), 194.

essary party. Calumet R. R.
Value of trees growing on

Co. v. Brown (lil.), 199.
land; opinion evidence as to. Mortgaged property; condemna.
Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. tion of, 205 n.
Graney (III.), 185 n.

Receivers as parties to action to
Witness may express opinion try title to land. San Antonio
as to damages including value & A. P. R. Co. v. Ruby (Tex.).
as to portion taken and damage 205 n.
done to remainder. Navada & Public Lands.
M. R. Co. v. DeLissa (M0.), Mining claim; condemnation of
187 n.

surface over. Evidence. Rights
Price of property.

Evidence as of owners to surface, Colorado
what owner would sell property M. R. Co. v. Bowles (Colo.),
for properly refused. Auman | 268 n.
v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. Pre-emption claim; condemnation
(Pa.), 192 n.

of. Right of way through lund
Price paid for land by landowner; of claimant whose entry has

evidence as ro, not admissible. been suspended. Colorado M.
San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. R. Co. v. Bowles (Colo.;. 268 n.
Ruby (Tex.), 192 n.

Right of way across public land.
Value of land before and after Judicial notice of company's

road crossed it; evidence as to, right. Map of right of way.
is admissible. Evansville & R. McKeoin v. Northern P. R. Co.
R. Co. v. Swift (Ind.), 193 n.

(C. C.), 269 n.
View by jury of land taken. In- Procedure.

struction to estimate damages Abandonment. Company may
from the evidence.

Flower v.

abandon purpose of taking
Baltimore & P. R. Co. (Pa.) property even after county
168 n.

court has entered judgment as.
Parties.

sessing damages. Manion 2.
Executrix; action by, to

Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co.
damages to her estate. Chat.

(Ky.), 107.
tanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Mc-

Right of railroad company to
Landon (Ga.), 205 n.

abandon its purpose of taking
Interest in land; party must show property, III n.

before he is entitled to recover. Action on award appraising dam-
Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. ages. Sufficiency of complaint.
Easley (Kan.), 205 11.

Negativing defense. McKeoin
Sufficiency of title by adverse v. Northern P. R. Co. (C. C.),
possession to maintain petition. 269 n.
Andrew v. Nantasket B. R. Co. Agreement of parties. Petition
(Mass.), 205 n.

need not aver a failure to agree,
Misjoinder of causes of action for since the presumption is that

injuries to land owned by dif. they cannot agree. Farnsworth
ferent parties. Leavenworth, v. Lime Rock R. Co. (Me.), 64.
N. & S. R. Co. v. Wilkins

Prior negotiation for land as
(Kan.), 205 n.

a prerequisite to right to con-
Mistake. Equity will relieve demn. What is a sufficiens

recover

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »