American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.

Decision Date28 March 1907
Citation202 Mo. 656,101 S.W. 576
PartiesAMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. OF MISSOURI v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

A proposed telephone and telegraph line along one side of a railroad company's right of way, corresponding to the line of poles and wires of another company on the other side of the right of way, agreed to place its poles at an average of not less than 35 to the mile, 35 feet from the center line between the rails of the main track, and continuing at that distance where the width and conditions of the right of way would permit, and not nearer than 15 feet in any event, and not nearer than 15 feet from the center line between the rails of all side tracks, etc., where the width of the right of way would permit. The poles and wires strung thereon were to be of the best material, the poles to be held securely in position and at all curves so guyed and braced as to resist the tension of the wires, and, in cases where it should be necessary to cross the tracks of the railroad, to be of sufficient height to raise all wires clear of all other structures upon the right of way. The company agreed to change the location of its poles in the event the railroad desired to change the location of its tracks, or construct new tracks or depots. etc., and that the railroad could take all dirt, etc., from the right of way over which its wires were strung that it might need from time to time, and that it had no right to fence in any of the right of way. Held, that the proposed line would not, if constructed, materially interfere with the public use to which the easement of the railroad company was put.

6. SAME.

Where, in proceedings by a telephone and telegraph company to condemn an easement in the right of way of a railroad company to erect and maintain its poles and wires, the railroad introduced evidence tending to show danger to trains and its railroading operations from the presence of poles and wires along the right of way, arising from storms of wind and sleet, and that if it installed the block system on its road the presence of the poles at curves might interfere with the observation by its trainmen of the signals pertaining to that system, and at the close of the proof asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of evidence to make a case entitling the telephone and telegraph company to condemn an easement in the railroad's easement, which was refused, the refusal of such instruction involved a determination by the court of the judicial question whether the proposed easement would materially interfere with the public use to which the easement of the railroad company was put, as against the objection that such question was raised and not determined in the trial court.

7. SAME—PROCEEDNGS TO TAKE PROPERTY—PETITION—SUFFICIENCY.

Where, in proceedings by a telephone and telegraph company to condemn an easement in the right of way of a railroad company to erect and maintain its poles and wires, the termini of the right of way to be acquired were given, the approximate distance of the poles from the track, the size of the poles and cross-arms, the depth that the poles were to be placed in the ground, and the guys, braces, etc., were referred to in such language and with such limitation as to convey definite information to a person versed in constructing telephone and telegraph lines, the easement proposed to be acquired was described with sufficient definiteness and certainty.

8. SAME—JUDGMENT—RESERVATIONS AND LIMITATIONS—EFFECT AS COVENANTS RUNNING WITH LAND.

Reservations, stipulations, promises, and limitations made and placed on an easement acquired in condemnation proceedings by the petition and judgment have the effect of covenants running with the land, and in such a case run with the easement and are binding on the plaintiff company and its successors.

9. SAME—ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION—INSTRUCTIONS.

In proceedings by a telephone and telegraph company to condemn an easement in the right of way of a railroad company to erect and maintain its poles and wires, an instruction that the railroad company was entitled to recover all loss and damage that it had or would sustain by reason of injury to its title or right in the land occupied by its road, by reason of the appropriation, taking into consideration its position, existing fences, or structures of any kind connected with its operation as a railroad upon the land, or changes in its surface required by law, or in fact necessary to be made by the railroad company to accommodate its own land to any new improvement which the jury believed the railroad company intended to make upon the land for the purpose of economically and safely transporting passengers and freight over its railroad, and that in estimating the damages the jury should consider any increased difficulty of access to the railroad and any impairment of its capacity for doing business which the railroad would sustain by reason of the appropriation, was properly refused.

10. SAME — COMPENSATION — ELEMENTS OF DAMAGE.

Where a railroad was constructed through a low country, wet in places, and its right of way had been cleared of timber at a great expense, and was fenced, and it was not practicable to have more than one telephone or telegraph line on any one side of its tracks, and one side was already occupied, it could not be held that the right of the company to construct a line on the other side, or rent the same for that purpose, was of mere nominal value.

11. SAME.

Where a railroad was constructed through a low country, wet in places, and its right of way had been cleared of timber at great expense, and was fenced, and the company was under obligation to prevent fires starting on the same, it was proper in proceedings by a telephone and telegraph company to condemn an easement in the right of way to erect and maintain its poles and wires, in determining what was a fair compensation for the right acquired, to take into consideration the improved condition of the land.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. L. Fort, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the American Telephone & Telegraph Company against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. From the judgment, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Franklin Ferris, Joseph H. Zumbalen, Martin L. Clardy, Eleneious Smith, and L. F. Dinning, for appellant. Phillips & Phillips and Walter J. Terry, for respondent.

LAMM, J.

Plaintiff is a domestic telephone and telegraph corporation, and seeks to condemn an easement for the erection and maintenance of poles and lines in the right of way of defendant railway company from the city of Poplar Bluff in Butler county to the southern boundary of Missouri, a distance of 21 miles. The proceeding progressed through the statutory stages of the filing of plaintiff's petition in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Butler county, the entry of an order in vacation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. North American Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 15, 1915
    ... ... 1173, 41 L.Ed. 265; American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v ... St. Louis, I.M. & Southern Ry. Co., 202 Mo. 656, 101 ... S.W. 576, 585, 586; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v ... 842, 848, 49 C.C.A. 663; St. Louis & C.R. Co. v. Postal ... Tel. Co., 173 Ill. 508, 51 N.E. 382, 390, 392; ... Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Oregon Short Line ... ...
  • In re Kansas City Ordinance No.39946
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1923
    ...and called into existence by its charter, within the limitations stated, must, as we have said in Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Railroad Co., 202 Mo. 356, 101 S. W. 576, be shown to have been bestowed in express terms or by necessary implication. Before considering whether the newer thus req......
  • Kansas City v. Terminal Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1930
    ...Mo. 71; St. Louis H. & K.C. Ry. Co. v. Union Depot Co., 125 Mo. 82; Lewis on Eminent Domain (3 Ed.) sec. 417, p. 751; American Tel. & Telegraph Co. v. Ry. Co., 202 Mo. 656; Kansas & Texas Coal Ry. Co. v. Coal & Mining Co., 161 Mo. 288. (6) Section 8 of Ordinance No. 41448 authorizing this i......
  • Coates & Hopkins Realty Co. v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1931
    ...89 So. 380; 21 C. J. 923-924; 20 C. J. 613; St. Louis, Hannibal & Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Union Depot Co., 125 Mo. 82; American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ry. Co., 202 Mo. 656; Nichols, "Eminent Domain" (2 Ed.) sec. 745. (b) user by the Union Depot Company was a continuation of the use for general r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT