Cameron v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1889
• Citation: 43 N.W. 785,42 Minn. 75
• Parties: CAMERON v CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

42 Minn. 75

43 N.W. 785

CAMERONvCHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 22, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The owner of a farm consisting of distinct parcels of land, separated by lands not owned by him, and over which he has no private right of way, is not entitled to have such separate parcels treated as one entire tract, for the purpose of the assessment of damages for the taking (for railroad purposes) of land in one only of such parcels.

Appeal from district court, Mower county; FARMER, Judge.

Kingsley & Shepherd, for appellant.

Lovely & Morgan and La Fayette French, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing a new trial, the cause having been tried in the district court upon an appeal from the award of commissioners in proceedings to condemn land for railroad purposes. The land of the respondent consisted of a farm of 455 acres in Mower county. Long prior to this condemnation two lines of railroad, operated by the appellant, had been established across the farm, and the right of way therefor acquired. One of these runs in a north and south direction, and is called the “Iowa & Minnesota Division” of the appellant's road. The other, running east and west, is called the “Southern Minnesota Division.” These two lines crossed each other at a junction called “Ramsey,” on the respondent's farm. The lands sought to be appropriated through this proceeding consisted in part of a tract of eight and a half acres, in triangular form, at the junction of the two lines of road, being east of the Iowa & Minnesota Division, and south of the Southern Minnesota Division. The respondent has owned this land since 1871, although he never acquired the fee of the strip extending north and south across the farm, constituting the line of the Iowa & Minnesota Division. In the trial of the case evidence was received, against the appellant's objections, as to the amount of the injury to the entire farm resulting from the taking of the eight and a half acre piece east of the Iowa & Minnesota Division of the road; and a refusal of the court to charge as requested also presents the same legal question,-that is, whether, by reason of the separation of the farm into two parts by the intervening strip of land occupied by the railroad, running north and south, and the fee of which was never conveyed to the respondent, the lands comprising this farm must be treated as two separate and distinct tracts of land for the purpose of the assessment of damages. It does not necessarily follow, from the fact that the western part of the farm, thus divided, may have been rendered less valuable by reason of the taking of the eight and a half acres out of that part of the farm east of the railroad, that compensation for such injury should be allowed. A land-owner may be injured by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and still not be entitled to compensation. One in the vicinity of whose lands a railroad may be located may suffer a depreciation in the value of his lands, yet he cannot recover therefor. That does not constitute a taking or interference with his property. Nor is such a land-owner entitled to compensation for such injury, although he may have other lands which are actually taken for the public use. While the injurious consequences of such improvements, in the depreciation of the values of particular lands, may extend very far from the location of the railroad, the rule of compensation has been, and perhaps must be, upon grounds of necessity and expediency, somewhat more limited and definite. In this country it is generally confined to the particular tract of land the whole or a part of which is taken, damages being awarded only for the land taken, and for the resulting injury to the remainder of the same tract, without regard to other lands of the same...