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.),
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.
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
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.
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.
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 #.
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.
Executrix; action by, to recover damages to her estate.
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.
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
« PreviousContinue » |