EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-Continued.

Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Wolf (Ill.), 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 (Ill.), 149 n; Same v.
Nix (Ill.), 150 n; Same v. Blume
(Ill.), 150 n; Same v. Wolf (Ill.),

150 и.
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 v. St. Louis, A. & T.
R. Co. (Ark.), 153 n.
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. v. 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.

court to instruct jury to give
damages for inconveniences,
although they may be largely
conjectural." Chicago & P. R.
Co. v. Hildebrand (Ill.), 145.
Increased value of land owing to
construction of bulkhead by
railroad company; considera-
tion of. Harris v. Schuylkill R.
E. S. R. Co. (Pa.), 152 n.
Independent trespasses com-
mitted by company outside of
land appropriated; landowner
cannot recover for. Leaven-
worth, N. & S. R. Co. v. Herley
(Kan.), 153 .

Interest on damages where com-
pany has been in the enjoyment
of land. Newgass . 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-
ous. Chicago & P. R. Co. v.
Hildebrand (IH.), 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 (Ill.), 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 to-
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. v. 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 (Ill.), 168 n.

Rental value as measure of
damages. Instructions. Bal-

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 (Ill.), 151 n.
Number and speed of passing

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-Continued.

trains, danger of accidents to
employes, and risk of fire 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 & 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 to
which damages should be con-
fined. Instructions. Chicago
& I. C. R. Co. v. Hunter (Ind.),
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.

Con-

what is considered as.
tiguous lands. Leavenworth,
N. & S. R. Co. v. Wilkins (Kan.),
149 n.
Time as to which damages should
be assessed. Assessment should

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Damages-Continued.

be made as of the date of the
condemnation, and not as of the
time of original wrongful entry. ¦
Texas, W. R. Co. v. Cave (Tex.),
129 ; San Antonio & A. P. R.
Co. v. Ruby (Tex.), 130n; New-
gass v. St. Louis, A. & T. R.
Co. (Ark.), 130 n.
Time of assessment. Evidence

as to value of property at time
of appeal trial admissible, and
jury should assess damages
accordingly. Georgia, S. & F.
R. Co. v. Small (Ga.), 116.

Damages should be assessed
in accordance with situation
and conditions existing at time
of appraisement. Twin Lakes,
H. G. M. S. v. Colorado M. R.
Co. (Colo.), 131 n.

Question is immaterial when
it is undisputed that there was
no change in occupation or
value of property at different
dates. Rees 7. Schuylkill R. E.
S. R. Co. (Pa.), 131 n.

Rule where there has been
wrongful entry, 128 n.

is date of taking by proper
legal proceedings, and not at
time of previous wrongful en-
try. Chicago, M. & St. P. R.
Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co.
(Mo.), 118.

Value of farming land if divided

into city lots should not be con-
sidered by jury as an element
of damages. Kansas C. & T.
R. Co. v. Splitlog (Kan.), 151 n.
Verdict of jury awarding dam-
ages, sufficiency of. Failure to
show finding as to benefits.
Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Stark
(Colo.), 257 n.
Widening street.

Damages to be
allowed railroad which has con-
structed enbankments, and
bridge, and carried its track
over such street. Kansas City
v. Kansas City B. R. Co. (Mo.),
157.

Evidence.

Admissibility of estimates of wit-

nesses as to amount of dam-
ages, 187 n.
Admission without objection.
Propriety of including damages
in assessment cannot be ques-
tioned on appeal. Colorado

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Evidence—Continued.

M. R. Co. v. Brown (Colo.),
164.
All evidence having bearing on
compensation for damages is
admissible. Colorado M. R.
Co. v. Brown (Colo.), 164.
Assessed value of land; evidence
as to. Estoppel of plaintiff who
is one of assessors. Smith .
Pennsylvania S. V. R. Co. (Pa.),
193 n.

Bona fide offers for land; evidence
as to, admissible to prove value.
Muller v. Southern Pac. B. R.
Co. (Cal.), 192 n.
Buildings on land separated from
farm; evidence as to. Chicago,
P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Graney
(Ill.), 193 n.

Cost of rebuilding tramway made
necessary by railroad track;
evidence as to, is admissible.
Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Wolf (Ill.), 192 n.

Danger to stock; reference by
witnesses to, held harmless er-

ror. Chicago, P. & St. L. R.
Co. v. Blume (Ill.), 192 #.
Discharge of sewage on land af-

fecting its value; evidence as
to, inadmissible. Harris 7.
Schuylkill R. E. S. R. Co. (Pa.),
192 n.

Farming lands; in condemna-
tion of, evidence is inadmissi-
ble as to size, number, and
value of city lots near by. Kan-
sas C. & T. R. Co. v. Splitlog
(Kan.), 191 #.

Chi-

Fences. Evidence as to damages
arising from railroad remaining
unfenced held admissible.
cago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Eaton (Ill.), 191 n.

Greater price where land is taken
without owner's consent; evi-
dence as to. Chicago, P. & St.
L. R. Co. v. Graney (III.), 192 n.
Ice house; construction of, by
railroad in place of one de-
stroyed. Evidence as to use of
new ice house. Rees v. Schuyl
kill R. E. S. R. Co. (Pa.), 193 #
Improvements on land; evidence
as to worth of, in estimating
damages to land not taken. Chi-
cago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v.
Eaton (Ill.), 191 #.

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-
dence as to line of street. Com-
mon reputation. Muller 21.
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 (Ill.), 185 n.
Opinions. Evidence as to amount
of damages sustained. Qualifi-
cation of 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. Muller
(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 (Mo.),
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 by 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. v. Brown (Ill.), 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 land
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. Manion v.
Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co.
(Ky.), 107.

Right of railroad company to
abandon its purpose of taking
property, III 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 sufficient