Barrett v. Kemp
| Decision Date | 22 May 1894 |
| Citation | 59 N.W. 76,91 Iowa 296 |
| Parties | BARRETT ET AL. v. KEMP ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Hardin county; J. L. Stevens, Judge.
Proceeding to condemn land for cemetery purposes Trial to jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.C E. Albrook, for appellants.
M. J. Furry, for appellees.
1. September 25, 1891, plaintiffs, as trustees of Alden township, in Hardin county, Iowa, filed their petition, reciting that the defendants were the owners of certain lands (describing them), that it was necessary to immediately procure additional ground for cemetery purposes in said township, and praying the condemnation of five acres of ground therefor. October 13, 1891, defendants filed their answer, admitting the ownership of the property, that plaintiffs were the trustees of the township, and denying that any necessity existed for procuring additional grounds for cemetery purposes; denying plaintiffs' right to have same condemned, because it was not necessary. October 14, 1891, plaintiffs amended their petition by striking out the allegation that it was necessary to immediately procure additional cemetery grounds, and substituting therefor the statement “that plaintiffs herein, at a special meeting held on the 19th day of September, A. D. 1891, determined that it was necessary to immediately procure additional cemetery grounds, and ordered the institution of an action to condemn the lands hereinafter set out in the petition.” October 16th, defendants answered said amendment, denying plaintiffs' right to take the property, because it was not necessary so to do; denying plaintiffs' right to determine the question, in such a manner as to be binding upon defendants, without notice; and averring that such action, without notice, would be void. And further they say: “With reference to the allegations stating what was done on the 26th day of September, 1891, these defendants say they have neither knowledge nor information sufficient to form a belief.” On the same day, plaintiffs filed their demurrer to defendants' answer and the amendment thereto, consisting of three grounds, being, in substance, that (1) the only question that could be determined in the action is the value of the land sought to be condemned, and defendants' damage; (2) that plaintiffs were the exclusive judges of the necessity for condemnation; and (3) that no notice of plaintiffs' purpose to institute condemnation proceedings was required. This demurrer was sustained, to which ruling defendants excepted. Upon the questions of damages, the cause was tried to a jury, and verdict of $360 found for defendants, upon which judgment was entered. Defendants appeal.
2. It is said the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The assignment of error is not sufficiently specific to raise this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erwin v. Mississippi State Highway Commission
...Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364; Smedley v. Erwin, 51 Pa. 445; Joplin Consolidated Mining Co. v. City of Joplin , 27 S.W. 406; Barrett v. Kemp, 91 Iowa, 296, 59 N.W. 76. Courts will interfere and review the exercise of the discretion of those to whom the power of eminent domain has been delega......
-
Ham v. Board of Levee Com'rs for Yazoo-Mississippi Delta
...333; Waterworks Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364; Smedley v. Erwin, 51 Pa. 445; Mining Co. v. City of Joplin (Mo.), 27 S.W. 406; Barrett v. Kemp, 91 Iowa 296, 59, 59 76 N.W. , 76. Courts will interfere and review the exercise of the discretion of those to whom the power of eminent domain has be......
-
Bailey v. Board of Levee Com'rs for Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, YAZOO-MISSISSIPPI
...41 Ind. 364; Smedley v. Erwin, 51 Pa. 445; (Joplin Consolidated) Mining Co. v. City of Joplin, 124 Mo. 129, 27 S.W. 406; Barrett v. Kemp, 91 Iowa 296, 59 N.W. 76. Courts will interfere and review the exercise of the discretion of those to whom the power of eminent domain has been delegated ......
-
Minear v. Plowman
...that, where the exercise of the right of eminent domain is granted, the grantee is allowed to exercise much discretion. In Barrett v. Kemp, 91 Iowa, 296, 59 N. W. 76, where township trustees sought to condemn land for additional cemetery ground, among other things we said: “It is also clear......