King v. Minneapolis Union Railway Company
| Decision Date | 12 June 1884 |
| Parties | George S. King and another v. Minneapolis Union Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Proceedings instituted by the Minneapolis Union Railway Company to condemn for railway purposes a leasehold interest in certain lots in the city of Minneapolis, owned by Laraway & King, the respondents in this appeal. The award of the commissioners having been made and filed, Laraway & King appealed therefrom to the district court for Hennepin county where a trial was had before Koon, J., and a jury, who assessed the damages at $ 33,000. The railway company appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
J. M Shaw and J. B. Gilfillan, for appellant.
Wilson & Lawrenee and Robinson & Bartleson, for respondents.
This proceeding was instituted by the railway company to condemn for railway purposes a leasehold interest of Laraway & King in certain lots in the city of Minneapolis, together with certain buildings and fixed machinery thereon. It was brought into the district court on appeal from the award of the commissioners, and the only issue was the amount of compensation to which Laraway & King were entitled; and inasmuch as their entire interest was taken, the issue resolved itself into the question of the value of their leasehold interest. After verdict, the railway company moved for a new trial on the grounds (1) of errors of law occurring at the trial; and (2) that the verdict was against law and not justified by the evidence. This motion having been denied, the company appeals.
On the trial numerous exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court in the admission of evidence, and to his charge to the jury; but, when examined, we find they all involve really one, and only one, question, viz., whether the court did not permit an improper element to be taken into consideration in ascertaining the value of respondents' leasehold interest in this real estate; hence they may all be considered together. Respondents held a lease of the premises for 99 years. The terms of rental were 7 per cent. per annum on the appraised value of the land, exclusive of improvements, and the payment of all taxes and assessments. A new valuation of the land was to be made every five years, which furnished the basis of the rental for the five years following. Respondents erected buildings on the premises, and placed therein certain fixed machinery for a plow factory. The buildings and machinery were especially designed for that purpose, and, presumably, could not be advantageously used for any other. They had for over 14 years carried on this manufacturing business on the premises, and were still doing so when these condemnation proceedings were commenced. The evidence minutely described the situation of the premises, the size of the buildings, the nature and character of the machinery, and the uses to which it was adapted. Witnesses were also called to prove the value of the respondents' leasehold interest, including the buildings and machinery. While the exceptions to the admission of evidence as well as to the charge of the court vary somewhat in form, and present the matter in different shapes, yet the general question raised by all of them really is whether it was proper, in determining the value of this property, to take into account the fact that there was a manufacturing business established and in operation upon the premises. That this was allowed is really the alleged error here urged, and which we have to consider.
We think it may be stated as elementary that a person is entitled to the fair value of his property for any use to which it is adapted and for which it is available, and for which it may be sold. He is entitled to the value of his property for any use to which...
To continue reading
Request your trial