Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

EMINENT DOMAIN.
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.), 8.
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 judgmert for part of
amount claimed. Chicago, I.
& K. R. Co. v. Townsdin (Kan.),
270 n.

Proceedings 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 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.-- +5

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Procedure-Continued.

infringed, 256 n.
Jury trial. What constitutes legal

jury in condemnation proceed-
ings. Colorado C. R. Co. v.
Humphreys (Colo.i, 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 pian. Application
to deviation from original line.
Kingston & P. R. Co. v. Mur-
phy (Cap.), 269 n.

Sufficiency of map and sur-
vey for identification of proper.
ty sought to be taken. Toledo
$. & M. R. Co. v. Campau

(Mich.), 270 n.
Misconduct of commissioners. Er

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, I74 n.

Receiving entertainm ment
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.

to

EMINENT DOMAIN, ,
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. Fort
St. U. D. Co. v. Morton (Mich),
41.

The sufficiency of the oath,
47 n.

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 the
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 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 11.
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 v. 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.), 245 .
Injunction.
Compensation; attempt to take

land without making, will be
enjoined. Payne 3. 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 .
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 v.
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. Ar
lantic & D. R. Co. v. Reid (Va.).

268 n.
Jurisdictional amount. Supreme

court cannot review judgment
for 'ess than for $500. Rich-
mond, F. & P. R. Co. y. Knopff

(Va.), 268 n.
Jurisdiction of New York Court

on

EVIDENCE-Continued.
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 establish contract.
Lookout Mountain R. Co. v..

to

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. Co.

(N. J.), 263.

Time for taking appeal, 267 n.
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES. See

CONTRACT.
EQUITY. See INJUNCTION.

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. COUŘTS.
Mistake. Equity will relieve rail-

road company from
quences of mistake whereby
they omit to make mortgagee a
party to condemnation proceed-
ings. Calumet R. R. Co. v.

Brown (I11.), 199.
ESTOPPEL.

Director. Contracts in name of

corporation. See Officers.
EVIDENCE. See JUDICIAL Notice.

Admissions as to cause of injury

to passenger, and statements of
companion made in his pres-
ence ; held good evidence as to
cause of injury. Olivier v.
Louisville & N. R. Co. (La.),

576.
Assault on passenger by brake-

man. Evidence. Res gesta. Ala.
G. S. R. Co. v. Frazier (Ala.),

648 n.
Condition of railroad track. See

PASSENGERS, Defective Track and

Roadbed.
Contract of promoters ; issuance

of stock. Evidence as tv power
of company to procure sub-

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
person to submit to. Union P.
R. Co. v. Botsford (U. S.), 406.

Surgical examination of

conse-

EVIDENCE- Continued.

FRANCHISE-Continued.
plaintiff's person. Selection of! Wheeling B. & T. R. Co. o.
experts is within discretion of Camden C. O. Co. (W. V'a.), 27.
court. Refusal to appoint par-, FRAUD.
ticular person, not erroneous. Avoiding obligation ; fraud sur-
Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill nishes ground for, but such ob-
(Ala.), 500.

ligation cannot be assailed in
Parol evidence. Surgical exami- order to hold property which it

nation of plaintiff's person in transferred. Barr v. New York,
actions for, 414 n.

L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 329.
Presumption of negligence or Conditional sale of stock. Cancel.
care. "See CONTRIBUTORY NEG- lation of agreement. See STOCK
LIGENCE; PASSENGERS,

AND STOCKHOLDERS.
Rule forbidding trains to pass be- Finding. How fraud must be

tween station and another train found. Statement of badges or
discharging passengers ; evi- evidence of fraud insufficient.
dence as to, in actions for in-

Farmers' L. & T. Co, v. N. & St.
jury to passenger run over at L. R. Co. (Ind.), 271.
station. Lake Shore & M. Lease of railroad. Corrupt scheme
S. R. Co. v. Ward (I11.), 533 n.

of directors. See LEASE.
Similar accidents at other sta. INCORPORATION.

tions ; evidence as to, in ac- Authority to build short connect-
tions for injuries received on ing railroad under act authoriz-
station platform. Brady v. ing formation of railroad com-

Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.), 528 x. panies. National Docks & N.
EXCURSION TRAINS. See TICKETS J. J. C. R. Co. v. State (N. J.),
AND FARES.

87.
EXPERTS. See EVIDENCE,

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

See CONTRACTORS.
EXPRESS COMPANY.
Express messenger is a passen-

INDIAN LANDS.

Cherokee nation ; title to lands
ger. See PASSENGERS.
FARES. See TICKETS AND FARES.

which it holds: Rights of indi-

vidual citizens, Payne v. Kan.
FEDERAL QUESTION. See U. S. sas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.
COURTS,

Eminent domain. Cherokee cit.
FENCES.

izen held entitled to pay for
Cost of fencing land as an ele- additional servitude imposed on

ment of damages in condemna- land. Payne v. Kansas & A.
tion proceedings. See EMINENT V. R. Co. (C. C.). 228.
Domain, Damages.

INDICTMENT. See SUNDAY.
Derailment of train, caused by INJUNCTION.

collision with animal, produc- Electric street railway. See
ing injury to passenger. Neg. STREET RAILWAYS.
ligence in failing to fence track. Eminent domain. Enjoining en-
Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wil.

try on land. See EMINENT Do.
son (Tex.), 522 n.

MAIN, Injunction.
FINDINGS. See VERDICT.

Federal practice.

Courts gov.
FIRE.

erned by laws of congress and
Destruction of sleeping cars.

general equity practice. Payne
Contract with railroad company v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (C.

construed. See SLEEPING CARs. C.), 228.
FOREIGN CORPORATION.

Irreparable damages defined :
Regulation of passenger rates. when party has adequate rem-
See TICKETS AND FARES.

edy at law urder U. S. statute,
FORFEITURE, See CHARTER ; Payne v. Kansas & A. V. R.
FRANCHISE.

Co. (C. C.), 228.
FRANCHISE.

Sidetrack on company's own land.
Partial construction of road. As Temporary injunction, modified

to part of railroad completed so as to allow construction of.
company may maintain its cor- Savannah, A. & M. R. Co. 7.
porate existence and franchise. Fort (Ga.), 321 n.

to

INJUNCTION-Continued.

LATERAL RAILROADS. See
Temporary injunction. Notice to BRANCH Roads.

adverse party, when necessary LEASE.
under federal practice. Discre. Action against lessor and lessee of
tion of court.

Payne v. Kansas railroad. Removal of cause by
& A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.

one defendant. Spangler v.
Trespass. If remedy at law is Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C.

not claimed as adequate, con- C.), 372 n.
tinuing trespass may be en- Competing lines, acquisition by
joined. Payne v. Kansas & A. railroad company of. Construc-
V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.

tion of Mo. statute. Kimball v.
INSTRUCTIONS.

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C.
Court is under no obligation to C.), 369 n.
single out testimony of wit-

operation and control of, by
nesses, and instruct on its ef. another competing line made il.
fect if it is believed. Alabama legal by statute. Manchester &
G. S. R. Co, v. Hill (Ala.), 502.

L. R. Co. v. Concord R. Co. (N.
Dount or uncertainty as to facts.

H.), 359.
Instruction find against

validity of contracts between,
plaintiff properly refused. Ala- 368 n.
[bama G. S. Ř. Co. v. Hill (Ala.),

contracts between, prevent-
502.

ing competition ; when void as
General charge ex mero motu, against public policy. Man.

must be considered as a whole. chester & L. R. Co. v. Concord
Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill R. Co. (N. H.), 359.
(Ala.), 501.

Contract for use of tracks, depots,
INSURANCE.

etc. Assignment of lessee held
Sleeping cars ; destruction of, by to carry with it all its rights
fire. Liability of railroad com-

under the contract. Chicago, R.
pany. See SLEEPING CARs.

I. & P. R. Co, v. Denver & R.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

G. R. Co. 'C. C.), 358 n.
State police regulations concern- Controlled line; lease of, for rent

ing railroads as a regulation of to be paid controlling company,
interstate commerce, 16 n.

held not void for want of con-
Sunday trains ; statute forbidding. sideration. Chicago, R. I. & P.
See SUNDAY.

R. Co. v. United Pac. R. Co.
JURISDICTION. See EQUITY; RE- (Neb.), 340.
MOVAL OF CAL'SES.

Fraud. Lease by railroad com-
Probate courts in Ohio are courts pany of another road con-

of record competent to decide structed by syndicate of di-
on their own jurisdiction, and rectors at extravagant rental.
their records import absolute Corrupt scheme held to make
verity. Cincinnati, S. & C. R. obligation of lease voidable.
Co. v. Belle Centre (Ohio), 72.

Barr v. New York, L. E. & W.
JURY.

R. Co. (N. Y.), 329.
Personal examination of premises. Lease by one road of another
See TRESPASS.

having directors in common,
JURY_AND JURY TRIAL. See

339 n.
EMINENT DOMAIN.

Lessor held not liable for damage
JUDICIAL NOTICE.

caused by water from em-
Railroad lines are marked out and bankment erected by Jessee.
.grades fixed by company's en- Miller v. New York, L. & W. R.
gineer. Courts will judicially Co. (N. Y.), 369.
notice this fact. Alabama M. Lessor's railroad not liable for

R, Co. v. Coskry (Ala.), 315 n. torts of lessee company. Miller
LAND.

v. New York, L. & W. R. Co.
Action to recover land. Superior- (N. Y.), 369.

ity of plaintiff's , title inferred Liability of company operating
where decree is entered by con- road, for injury where there is
sent. Lyon v. McDonald (Tex.), no evidence to show lease or
217.

ownership. Pennsylvania R.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »