St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 05 March 1907
• Citation: 100 S.W. 583,201 Mo. 491
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. STEWART.

100 S.W. 583

201 Mo. 491

ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. STEWART.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 5, 1907.

1. EVIDENCE—CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS— DAMAGES—ASSESSMENT—OPINION EVIDENCE.

Where, in proceedings to condemn a railroad right of way, the evidence showed that a depot, from the erection of which it was claimed that defendant derived special benefits, was located a quarter of a mile from his farm, and there was no evidence that it could be reached by any road from such farm, or that he derived any direct benefits therefrom, the action of the court in refusing to permit plaintiff to show that the benefit to defendant from the erection of the depot amounted to $5 per acre was proper, where the court told plaintiff's counsel that they could show any facts tending to prove that its erection was of special benefit to defendant, and the jury were instructed that the amount of such benefits, if any, to defendant's land should be considered in estimating the damages sustained.

2. APPEAL—REVIEW—HARMLESS ERROR.

In condemnation proceedings, error, if any, in directing the jury to assess damages from the standpoint of the value of the land at the time of the taking instead of at the date of the commissioners' report was harmless, where the evidence showed that the value of the land was the same at both dates.

3. TRIAL—INSTRUCTIONS—ASSUMPTIONS.

In condemnation proceedings, a requested instruction that defendant was entitled to farm crossings necessary for the convenient use of two tracts of land in connection with each other, and that if the jury believed that he refused to accept them he could not recover damages from the absence of such crossings, was properly refused, where the evidence in respect to such offer was conflicting, since it assumed that defendant was offered such crossings.

4. SAME — INSTRUCTIONS — DAMAGES — ERROR CURED BY OTHER INSTRUCTIONS.

In proceedings for the condemnation of a railroad right of way, that an instruction on damages, authorizing the jury to find the difference between the value of the property before the road was constructed through it and its value afterwards, was erroneous as authorizing

recovery whether any depreciation was caused by the road or not was harmless error, where such point was fully covered by other instructions.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barton County; H. C. Timmonds, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company against William M. Stewart. From an order overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial, it appeals. Affirmed.

E. O. Brown and Thomas & Hackney, for appellant. Thos. Dolan and John Dolan, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant upon a verdict assessing his damages at the sum of $500 in a condemnation proceeding instituted by plaintiff in the circuit court of Jasper county for the purpose of condemning a right of way through defendant's farm upon which to construct a railroad. The said farm contained 160 acres. Commissioners to assess the damages were duly appointed and qualified, and, upon the 16th day of April, 1903, made their report, in which they assessed defendant's damages at $300. Thereafter the plaintiff deposited said sum with the clerk, and afterwards, on the 25th day of April, 1903, the defendant filed his exceptions to the report of the commissioners, and prayed that the same be set aside, and that the damages be assessed by a jury. Thereafter, on the 2d of June, 1903, on application of the defendant, the venue of said cause was changed to the circuit court of Barton county, and on the 17th day of September, 1903, trial was had before the court and jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of defendant for the sum of $500. In due time plaintiff filed its motion for a new trial, which was upon the same day overruled. Plaintiff appeals.

The first assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to permit plaintiff to prove special benefits to defendant's farm arising from the construction of the railroad and the location of a station on an adjoining 40-acre tract of land. The evidence shows that the depot in question was located a quarter of a mile distant from defendant's land, and there was no evidence showing that it could be reached by any road from defendant's farm or that defendant derived any direct or peculiar benefits therefrom that were not shared by the rest of the neighborhood. The record shows that the court...