Adkins v. Smith

• Decision Date: 21 October 1895
• Citation: 94 Iowa 758,64 N.W. 761
• Parties: ADKINS v. SMITH, COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

94 Iowa 758

64 N.W. 761

ADKINS

v.SMITH, COUNTY AUDITOR, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 21, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Hamilton county; D. R. Hindman, Judge.

Appeal from an assessment of damages. Reversed.

Wesley Martin, for appellant.

KINNE, J.

1. Plaintiff is the owner of section 21 and the W. 1/2 of section 22, township 89, range 24 W. of the fifth P. M. in Hamilton county, Iowa. The county auditor, and the persons petitioning for the location of the highway hereafter described, are made defendants. The action is an appeal from an assessment of damages by a jury in the district court in favor of plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff the sum of $200. The highway, as located by the board of supervisors, begins at the southeast corner of section 21, in the township and range aforesaid, and runs thence north on the section lines for two miles. This road would divide plaintiff's farm, leaving a section west of the road and a half section east of it. This road would take, as is conceded, eight acres of plaintiff's land. Situated on the land so taken are 197 trees, being maples, box elders, and walnut trees. The maple trees are from four to six inches in diameter; the walnuts, smaller. There are hog pastures fenced off and used where the road is located. The buildings are all on section 21, and section 22 is mostly used for pasture. The opening of this highway would require the erection of a mile of fence, which would cost $150. Half of the present fence would have to be moved. Every witness, except one, who testified on the trial below placed the value of the land at $35 per acre, prior to the location of the highway. One witness put it at from $33 to $35. The estimate of difference in the value of the land before and after the taking of this eight acres of ground varied greatly. Every witness on the part of plaintiff, save one, placed the difference at from $1,500 to $2,000; the one put it at $400. Three of defendants' witnesses testified there would be no difference in value, but two of them showed by their answers that they took benefits into consideration. Two other witnesses on part of defendants say the difference in value would be the value of the eight acres taken; one says the difference is $240; one says that $100, added to the value of the eight acres taken, would be the difference in value of the farm; and another fixes the difference in value at the value of the land taken and cost of fencing. Now it is insisted,...