The Chicago and West Michigan Railway Company v. Huncheon
Decision Date | 11 March 1892 |
Docket Number | 15,020 |
Citation | 30 N.E. 636,130 Ind. 529 |
Parties | The Chicago and West Michigan Railway Company v. Huncheon et al |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the St. Joseph Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
J. H Bradley, for appellant.
C. F Griffin, D. J. Wile and J. B. Longworthy, for appellees.
The appellees are the owners of one thousand acres of land in one body in Laporte county. The land is crossed by two lines of railroad other than that of the appellant. The Louisville New Albany and Chicago Railway crosses it from north to south, and the Chicago, St. Louis and Pittsburgh Railroad crosses it from east to west. The appellant sought to appropriate a strip for its right of way, crossing the land from northeast to southwest. The necessary steps were taken under the statute; but the award of the arbitrators was unsatisfactory to the appellees. They filed exceptions, the cause was tried by a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in their favor. The only question arising on this appeal grows out of the action of the court in admitting in evidence the testimony of certain witnesses. The land sought to be appropriated was all embraced in three quarter sections, which were described in the act of appropriation.
The exceptions upon which the case was tried were upon the ground of inadequacy of damages, and contained no description of the land, but alleged, as above stated, that it consisted of "about one thousand acres of land in one body."
The testimony admitted by the court, over the objection of the appellant, related to that portion of the land not described in the act of appropriation. The objections were twofold in their character, and were stated by the appellant, in its objection to the introduction of the testimony, as follows:
"Said tracts or parcels of land constitute no part of the particular tract or parcel of land from which the land appropriated is taken, but are each separate and distinct, and cut off from that part of the land out of which the plaintiff's right of way is taken, each by the right of way of an existing railroad, in operation at the time of the taking of the defendants' land by the plaintiff company; and that, therefore, defendants were not entitled to prove or recover any damages for injury thereto; and also, for the reason that there is not any place in the instrument of appropriation, warrant, warrant to, or report of the appraisers, nor in any exception filed by the defendant in this cause, nor in any of the pleadings filed herein, any allegation or claim that any lands situated in said section 16 are affected or damaged by the location of said plaintiff's railroad, or the appropriation herein, and that, therefore, said defendants were not entitled to show or recover for any injury to said tract, section 16, nor was any issue made or tendered thereto."
A similar objection was made to testimony relating to another tract lying in section eight.
Counsel for the appellant concedes that it is the general rule "that all land belonging to one proprietor, in a continuous (or contiguous) body, and which is used together for a common purpose, will be considered one tract, without regard to the government subdivision," but says:
To sustain the appellant's contention would be to take a question of this character from the jury, and say, as a question of law, that when a farm is crossed by a right of way of a railroad, it becomes and is thereafter two farms instead of one. The rule, applied to the appellees' land as it will be with the appellant's right of way established, would require it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muncie Electric Light Company v. Joliff
... ... located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the right of ... way of the Fort ... 77, 21 N.E. 470 ... See, also, Chicago, etc., R. Co. v ... Huncheon (1892), 130 Ind. 529, 30 ... Fort Wayne, Muncie and Cincinnati Railway Company heretofore ... acquired by agreement of the ... ...
-
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago And St. Louis Railway Company v. Smith
... ... of supersedeas. §§ 679-682 Burns 1908, §§ ... 638-641 R. S. 1881; Michigan Mutual Life Ins. Co. v ... Frankel (1898), 151 Ind. 534, 50 N.E. 304. An ... appearance by ... Henderson [1898], 149 Ind. 458, 49 N.E. 443; ... West v. Cavins [1881], 74 Ind. 265). An ... appearance cannot be withdrawn, except on leave prayed ... farm into separate tracts. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v ... Huncheon (1892), 130 Ind. 529, 30 N.E. 636. Whether ... the tracts north and south of the old right of ... ...
-
Speck v. Kenoyer
...in holding the admitted evidence competent. Lewis, Em. Domain, § 475; Elliott, Roads & Streets, § 249. And see Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Huncheon, 130 Ind. 529, 30 N. E. 636;Lincoln v. Com., 164 Mass. 368, 41 N. E. 489;Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Ryan, 36 Minn. 546, 33 N. W. 35;Union Eleva......
-
Speck v. Kenoyer
... ... west highway in section one, township twenty-seven ... (2d ed.), § 249. And see ... Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Huncheon (1892), ... 130 Ind ... ...