Leisse v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1880 |
| Citation | 72 Mo. 561 |
| Parties | LEISSE v. THE ST. LOUIS & IRON MOUNTAIN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Eminent Domain.
The right of eminent domain resides in the State, and may be enforced, not only in behalf of the State, but of any artificial person clothed with a franchise, the enjoyment of which promotes a public use. The basis of the enforcement is the necessity for the public use of the property the taking of which is sought.
2. _____: ABANDONMENT OF PROCEEDINGS: DAMAGES.
If proceedings are instituted to condemn for public use the property of an individual, and after the value of the property is ascertained by inquest, the proceedings are abandoned because the price assessed is unsatisfactory, the corporation instituting such proceedings will be answerable to the owner for all damages occasioned by them.
3. _____: _______: REMEDY OF JOINT OWNERS.
Where property, against which proceedings to condemn for public use have been instituted and afterward abandoned, belonged to A & B, co-tenants, who in resisting the proceedings employed different counsel, who severally attended to the management of the case; Held, that it was error to permit them to sue jointly to recover damages for counsel fees.
In an action to recover damages for the institution of proceedings to condemn private property for public use, money need not have been actually paid out to entitle plaintiff to recover; but if a debt has been created by reason of such proceedings, a damage has been incurred for which an action will lie.a1
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Thoroughman & Pike for appellant.
E. T. Farish and Louis Gottschalk for respondent.
This was an action to recover damages resulting from the institution and discontinuance by the defendant of certain proceedings for the condemnation of a parcel of ground in the city of St. Louis, belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the circuit court, which was affirmed by the court of appeals, and the defendant has appealed to this court. This case was twice before the court of appeals. The first decision of the court is to be found in 2 Mo. App. Rep. p. 105, where all the questions involved in this litigation are discussed in a most exhaustive and satisfactory manner. The opinion of the court of appeals when the case was before it the second time, is not reported at length, but a statement of the point decided therein is to be found in 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langenberg v. City of St. Louis
...in valuation of property and loss of rental value, for which defendant is liable. Leisse v. St. Louis & I.M.R. Co., 2 Mo.App. 105, affirmed 72 Mo. 561; Simpson v. City of Kansas 111 Mo. 237, 20 S.W. 38; Winkleman v. City of Chicago, 213 Ill. 360, 72 N.E. 1066; Petroli v. Mayor and City Coun......
-
Meadow Park Land Company v. School District of Kansas City
...Co. v. Lackland, 25 Mo. 515; Railroad v. Reynal, 25 Mo. 534; Leisse v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Railroad Co., 2 Mo.App. 105, 5 Mo.App. 585, 72 Mo. 561; Sterrett v. Railroad, Mo.App. 650; Kirn v. Railroad, 124 Mo.App. 271; St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 138 Mo. 591; Gibbons v. Mo. Pac. ......
-
Myers v. Adler
...to their counsel for fees, they may recover from defendant though the fees had not been paid when they instituted their action. Leisse v. Railroad, 72 Mo. 561, 2 105, 118; Spengler v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 329; Wilbur v. Railroad, 110 Mo.App. 689, 695. (5) Expenses incurred in the effort......
-
66, Inc. v. Crestwood Commons Redev. Corp
...is a private or quasi public corporation. Leisse v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain Railroad Co., 2 Mo.App. 105, 113-14 (1876), aff'd 72 Mo. 561 (1880); Gibbons v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 40 Mo.App. 146, 151-52 (1890); Sterrett v. Delmar Ave. & C. Ry. Co., 108 Mo.App. 650, 654, 84 S.W. 150, 151 (1904);......