City of Kansas v. Butterfield
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Citation | 1 S.W. 831,89 Mo. 646 |
Parties | CITY OF KANSAS v. BUTTERFIELD. |
Decision Date | 15 November 1886 |
In a trial de novo, on appeal from a verdict in proceedings to condemn land for the opening of a street, an instruction of the court that the jury are not bound by the testimony of experts and others concerning the value of the land, but may apply their own judgment and knowledge in connection with the testimony, does not permit the jury to disregard the testimony, and is therefore not erroneous. City of Kansas v. Hill, 80 Mo. 523, distinguished. SHERWOOD, J., dissents.
Appeal from Jackson circuit court.
D. S. Twitchell, for respondent, City of Kansas. Frank Titus, for appellant, Butterfield.
The city of Kansas instituted proceedings to condemn certain private property of defendant for public use for the opening of Independence avenue from Grand avenue to Walnut street, in said city. A jury was impaneled, and rendered a verdict in the trial had before the mayor. From the verdict rendered defendant appealed to the circuit court of Jackson county where, on a trial de novo, a verdict awarding damages for the property to be taken was rendered, from which defendants have appealed to this court, and seek a reversal of the judgment because of the action of the court in giving, over their objection, the following declarations of law:
Section 3, art. 7, of the charter of the city of Kansas, directs the course to be pursued by a jury in condemnation proceedings, in awarding damages for property taken for a public purpose, and in assessing benefits derived from the improvements, and the first of the above instructions is in strict conformity with the charter provision. The learned counsel did not undertake in his oral argument, nor has he in his brief undertaken, to show wherein this instruction is erroneous, and we are unable to discover any valid objection to it.
In support of his objection to the second instruction counsel has cited us to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Markey v. Louisiana & M. R. R. Co.
... ... Rev. St. 1899, §§ 562, 997; Byler v. Jones, 79 Mo. 261; Capital City Bank v. Knox, 47 Mo. 333; Vastine v. Bast, 41 Mo. 493; Graham v. Ringo, 67 Mo. 324 ... Whiting, 19 Colo. 1, 34 Pac. 172; Jones v. Fitzpatrick, 47 S. C. 40, 24 S. E. 1030; City of Kansas v. Hill, 80 Mo. 533; Railroad v. Fowler, 142 Mo. 670, 44 S. W. 771; Hull v. St. Louis, 138 Mo. 618, 40 S. W. 89, 42 L. R. A. 753; City of Kansas v. Butterfield, 89 Mo. 646, 1 S. W. 831; St. Louis v. Ranken, 95 Mo. 189, 8 S. W. 249 ... (5) ... ...
-
Kansas City v. Bacon
... ... And ... unless the court is clearly satisfied that they have erred in ... the principles upon which they have made their appraisal ... there is nothing for review and their report should not be ... disturbed." Citing Kansas City v. Butterfield, ... 89 Mo. 646, 1 S.W. 831; Kansas City v. Baird, 98 Mo ... 215, 11 S.W. 243 ... In ... Kansas City v. Smart, 128 Mo. 272, 30 S.W. 773, the jury ... returned a verdict against the benefit district for $ 140,186 ... and $ 1 against the city and on that point this ... ...
-
In re Condemnation of Independence Avenue Boulevard v. Smart
... 30 S.W. 773 128 Mo. 272 In Re Condemnation of Independence Avenue Boulevard; Kansas" City v. Smart et al., Appellants Supreme Court of Missouri April 30, 1895 ... \xC2" ... report should not be disturbed.'" Kansas City v ... Butterfield , 89 Mo. 646, 1 S.W. 831; Kansas City v ... Baird , 98 Mo. 215, 11 S.W. 243; Garland v ... ...
-
In re North Terrace Park
... 48 S.W. 860 ... 147 Mo. 259 ... In re NORTH TERRACE PARK ... CITY" OF KANSAS CITY ... BACON et al. 1 ... Supreme Court of Missouri ... June 25, 1898 ... \xC2" ... Butterfield, 89 Mo. 646, 1 S. W. 831; Kansas City v. Baird, 98 Mo. 215, 11 S. W. 243, 562. In Kansas City v ... ...