Procedure-Continued. compliance by the railroad com- pany. Fort St. U. D. R. Co. v. Jones (Mich.), 70 n. Agreement of parties. Sufficiency of petition in condemnation pro- ceedings as to inability of par- ties to agree, 69 n.
Where petition avers that efforts were made to agree, but defendant tenders no issue on that point, company cannot ob- ject that court did not acquire jurisdiction. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co. (Mo.), 118.
Commissioners; qualification of, to assess damages. Action of two commissioners out of three. Ohio M. & R. Co. v. Barker (Ill.), 257 n. Costs. Effect of offer of company
to confess judgment for part of amount claimed. Chicago, I. & K. R. Co. v. Townsdin (Kan.), 270 n.
to condemn land held not to constitute an "action." Wisconsin C. R. Co. v. Kneale (Wis.), 270 n. Description of land in report of commissioners held sufficient to identify it. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co. (Mo.), 118.
Dismissal of proceedings to con- demn land. Right of defend-
ant to writ of restitution. Dur- ham & N. R. Co. v. North Car- olina R. Co. (N. Car.), 269 n. Instruction to commissioners.
Failure of court to instruct com- missioners when not requested is not ground for setting aside award. Chicago, M. &. St. P. R. Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co. (Mo.), 118.
Jury trial; either party may have,
but without demand it will be waived. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co. (Mo.), 118.
- Jury of twelve men de- manded by constitution. Stat- ute authorizing appeal from de- cision of jury of six directly to supreme court, invalid. Postal T. C. Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. (Ala.), 252.
when constitutional right is 47 A. & F. R. Cas.-45
EMINENT DOMAIN. Procedure-Continued. infringed, 256 n.
Jury trial. What constitutes legal jury in condemnation proceed- ings. Colorado C. R. Co. v. Humphreys (Colo.), 256 n.
Qualifications of juror in con- demnation proceedings. Juror who has acted in former panel. Hester V. Chambers (Mich.), 256 n.
under Mo. Const. a landown- er is entitled to, on assessment of damages. St. Joseph & I. R. Co. v. Cudmore (Mo.), 249. Mandamus to compel deposit of award, 262 n.
to compel company to deposit amount of award, held to lie. State v. Grand I. & W. C. R. Co. (Neb.), 257.
Maps and profiles; filing of, in con- demnation proceedings, 36 n.
-Filing map and profile held not a condition precedent to ap- pointment of commissioners; but court may in its discretion require them. Wheeling B. & T. R. Co. v. Camden C. O. Co. (W. Va.), 27.
Indication of land required on map or plan. Application to deviation from original line. Kingston & P. R. Co. v. Mur- phy (Can.), 269 n.
Sufficiency of map and sur- vey for identification of proper- ty sought to be taken. Toledo S. & M. R. Co. v. Campau (Mich.), 270 n. Misconduct of commissioners. Ex parte communications with ju- rors and commissioners, 176 n.
Going over land and discuss- ing case with one party in ab- sence of other held not to war- rant setting aside report, there having been two subsequent jury trials. Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co. v. Barrett (Ky.), 169.
Improprieties general- ly, 174 n.
Receiving entertainment from one of the parties, 175 n.
of viewers, jurors, etc., in con- demnation proceedings, 174 n. Nonsuit; when company will not be able to take. Nevada & M. R. Co. v. De Lissa (Mo.), 269 n.
Procedure-Continued. Notice of proceedings, 211 n. -to be given by commissioners is indispensable and cannot be disregarded. Jacksonville, T.' & K. W. R. Co. v. Adams (Fla.), 206.
to defendant; finding of court as to, cannot be impeached collaterally. Cincinnati, S. & C. R. Co. v. Belle Centre' (Ohio), 72.
Oaths of commissioners, jurors, and viewers to condemn land and assess damages, 46 n.
Necessity for oath, 46 n. Oath to jury in proceedings to condemn land held sufficient compliance with statute.
St. U. D. Co. v. Morton (Mich), 41.
The sufficiency of the oath,
Waiver of failure to take oath or defective oath, 50 n.
What records and reports should show as to the adminis- tration of oaths, 49 n. Open and close; held error to have allowed landowner right. Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ross (Tex.), 270 n.; Fort Worth & R. G. R. Co. v. Culver (Tex.), 270 n.
Removal to federal court of pro- ceedings in state court to con- demn right of way. Kansas C. & T. R. Co. v. Interstate L. Co. (C. C.), 25 n.
Service on defendants. Court
has power to decide when ser- vice is complete and parties are in court, and its decision on these questions cannot be col- laterally inquired into. Cincin- nati S. & C. R. Co. v. Belle Centre (Ohio), 72.
Verdict of jury awarding dam- ages. Sufficiency of. Failure to show findings as to benefits. Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Stark (Colo.), 257 n. Title in company.
Railroad com- pany in condemnation proceed- ings cannot set up title in itself. Colorado M. R. Co. v. Bowles (Colo.), 268 n. Unlawful Entry.
See INJUNCTIONS, infra.
Action of trespass against a rail-
EMINENT DOMAIN. Unlawful Entry-Continued.
road for entering on land with- out having it set apart, or noti- fying the owner of an intention to take it. Bellingham Bay R. & Nav. Co. v. Loose (Wash.), 248 n.
Action to recover possession of land taken without compensa- tion. Shoemaker z. Cedar Rap- ids, I. F. & N. W. R. Co. (Minn.), 248 n. Acquiesence by landowner in un- lawful entry; effect of. Mitch- ell v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. (La.), 248 n.. Injunction.
Compensation; attempt to take land without making, will be enjoined. Payne z. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228. Contract between railroad com- pany and landowner for right of way. Institution of condemna- tion proceedings by landowner. Temporary injunction. Harvey v. Kansas N. & D. R. Co. (Kan.), 247 n.
Federal court. Jurisdiction to enjoin entry pending suit in state court. Dillon 7. Kansas City S. B. R. Co. (C. C.), 247 n. Injunction to restrain occupation of land pending proceedings by certiorari to review condemna- tion. Traverse City, K. & G. R. Co. v. Seymour (Mich.), 247 n. Appeals.
Bonds for damages; appeal from order approving, held not to lie. Twelfth St. M. Co. v. Philadel phia & R. T. R. Co. (Pa.), 268 #. Condemnation of reservation in conveyance of land. Appeal of Cockroft (Conn.), 268 n. Entry on lands cannot be made until owner has reasonable time to appeal. Waite v. Port R. R. Co. (N. J.), 263.
Jurisdictional amount. Difference of award of first and second board of commissioners. At- lantic & D. R. Co. v. Reid (Va.), 268 n. Jurisdictional amount. Supreme court cannot review judgment for less than for $500. Rich- mond, F. & P. R. Co. v. Knopff (Va.), 268 n. Jurisdiction of New York Court
EMINENT DOMAIN.
Appeals-Continued.
of Appeals in condemnation proceedings. In re Metropoli- tan E. R. Co. (N. Y.), 268 n. Jury trial; right to, cannot be taken away by appeal from pro- bate court with jury of six men directly to supreme court. Pos- tal T. C. Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. (Ala.), 252. Mining claim; condemnation of surface over. Evidence. Rights of owners to surface. Colorado M. R.Co. v. Bowles (Colo.), 268 n. Reasonable time for taking ap- peal depends on circumstance. Sixteen days held not unreason- able. Waite v. Port R. R. Cơ. (N. J.), 263.
Time for taking appeal, 267 n. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES.
Accounting. Suit to enforce con- tract to make up deficiency in amount of net earnings. Juris- diction of equity on ground of accounting. Bradford E. & C. R. Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 374. Jurisdiction of U. S. Courts. See U. S. COURTS.
Mistake. Equity will relieve rail- road company from conse- quences of mistake whereby they omit to make mortgagee a party to condemnation proceed- ings. Calumet R. R. Co. v. Brown (Ill.), 199.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=esM9AAAAIAAJ&hl=el&output=html_text&pg=PA707&img=1&zoom=3&q=evidence&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3zsddjP1QLBU73izNSXfdUBY8ugg&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=118,1028,412,427)
scription. Stanton V. New York & E. R. Co. (Conn.), 390. Expert and opinion evidence in condemnation proceedings. See EMINENT DOMAIN, Evidence.
-Expert testimony that "spring rail," breaking of which caused an accident, appeared to be sound, not necessary. Craw- ford v. Georgia P. R. Co. (Ga.), 520 n.
Medical expert. Question "you have had many cases of obstetrics, have you?" disal- lowed as leading. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill (Ala.), 501.
Opinion evidence inadmissi- ble on question whether station platform is dangerous to pas- sengers. Graham v. Pennsyl- vania Co. (Pa.), 522.
Opinion evidence as to dan- gerous character of places, structures or appliances, 528 n. Operation of road. Presumption is, that company running the road is the party operating it. Peabody v. Oregon R. & N. Co. (Or.), 599.
Parol claim by contractors to as- sume debts of company. Evi- dence to establish contract. Lookout Mountain R. Co. v.. Houston (C. C.), 373 n.
Parol evidence held inadmissible to vary terms of contract between plaintiff and promoters of cor- poration, subsequently ratified. Stanton v. New York & E. R. Co. (Conn.), 390.
Loss of earnings; evidence as to, when such loss has not been specially pleaded. In- structions to jury. Mellor v. Missouri P. R. Co. (Mo.), 450.
Plaintiff calling physician to testify does not thereby waive right to object to his own physicians testifying on same subject. Mellor v. Missouri P. R. Co. (Mo.), 450.
Previous health, and manner and effect of injuries may be shown. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill (Ala.), 500.
Surgical examination; courts have no power to order injured Union P. person to submit to. R. Co. v. Botsford (U. S.), 406. Surgical examination of
plaintiff's person. Selection of experts is within discretion of court. Refusal to appoint par- ticular person, not erroneous. Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill (Ala.), 500. Parol evidence. Surgical exami- nation of plaintiff's person in actions for, 414 n. Presumption of negligence or care. See CONTRIBUTORY NEG LIGENCE; PASSENGERS. Rule forbidding trains to pass be- tween station and another train discharging passengers; evi- dence as to, in actions for in- jury to passenger run over at station. Lake Shore & M.
S. R. Co. v. Ward (Ill.), 533 n. Similar accidents at other sta- tions; evidence as to, in ac- tions for injuries received on station platform. Brady v. Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.), 528 n. EXCURSION TRAINS. See TICKETS AND FARES.
EXPERTS. See EVIDENCE.
EXPRESS COMPANY.
Express messenger is a passen-
ger. See PASSENGERS.
FARES. See TICKETS AND FARES. FEDERAL QUESTION.
Wheeling B. & T. R. Co. v. Camden C. O. Co. (W. Va.), 27.
Avoiding obligation; fraud fur- nishes ground for, but such ob- ligation cannot be assailed in order to old property which it transferred. Barr z. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 329. Conditional sale of stock. Cancel
lation of agreement. See STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS. Finding. How fraud must be found. Statement of badges or evidence of fraud insufficient. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. N. & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.), 271. Lease of railroad. Corrupt scheme of directors. See LEASE. INCORPORATION.
Authority to build short connect- ing railroad under act authoriz- ing formation of railroad com- panies. National Docks & N. J. J. C. R. Co. v. State (N. J.), 87. INDEPENDENT
title to lands Rights of indi-
INDIAN LANDS. Cherokee nation; which it holds. vidual citizens. Payne v. Kan- sas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 223. Eminent domain. Cherokee cit- izen held entitled to pay for additional servitude imposed on land. Payne v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228. INDICTMENT. See SUNDAY. INJUNCTION.
Electric street railway. See STREET RAILWAYS.
Eminent domain. Enjoining en- try on land. See EMINENT Do- MAIN, Injunction. Federal practice. Courts gov- erned by laws of congress and general equity practice. Payne v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228. Irreparable damages defined; when party has adequate rem- edy at law under U. S. statute. Payne v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228. Sidetrack on company's own land. Temporary injunction, modified so as to allow construction of. Savannah, A. & M. R. Co. v. Fort (Ga.), 321 n.
Action against lessor and lessee of railroad. Removal of cause by one defendant. Spangler v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C.), 372 n.
Competing lines, acquisition by railroad company of. Construc- tion of Mo. statute. Kimball v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C.), 369 n.
operation and control of, by another competing line made il- legal by statute. Manchester &
L. R. Co. v. Concord R. Co. (N. H.), 359.
validity of contracts between, 368 n.
contracts between, prevent- ing competition; when void as against public policy. Man- chester & L. R. Co. v. Concord R. Co. (N. H.), 359.
Contract for use of tracks, depots, etc. Assignment of lessee held to carry with it all its rights under the contract. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. (C. C.), 358 n. Controlled line; lease of, for rent to be paid controlling company, held not void for want of con- sideration. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. United Pac. R. Co. (Neb.), 340.
Lease by railroad com- pany of another road con- structed by syndicate of di- rectors at extravagant rental. Corrupt scheme held to make obligation of lease voidable. Barr v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 329.
Lease by one road of another having directors in common, 339 n.
Lessor held not liable for damage caused by water from em- bankment erected by lessee. Miller v. New York, L. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 369.
Lessor's railroad not liable for torts of lessee company. Miller v. New York, L. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 369.
Liability of company operating road, for injury where there is no evidence to show lease or ownership. Pennsylvania R.
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια » |