Carli v. Stillwater & St. Paul R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1871
• Citation: 16 Minn. 234
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER CARLI v. STILLWATER & ST. PAUL R. CO.

16 Minn. 234

CHRISTOPHER CARLIv.

STILLWATER & ST. PAUL R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court, Washington county, granting a new trial.

Brisbin & Palmer, for appellant.

H. R. Murdock, for respondent.

McMILLAN, J.

An award was made by commissioners appointed, on the application of the Stillwater & St. Paul Railroad Company, to assess the damages to certain lands taken by the railroad company for the purposes of its road

Carli appealed from the award of the commissioners to the district court; the appeal was tried by jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of Carli for $7,413.80. On motion of the respondent — no person appearing for the appellant at the hearing — a new trial was granted by the district court, and from the order granting a new trial Carli took an appeal to this court. The grounds of the motion for a new trial are not stated in the paper book; but from the points made in the arguments of the appellant's counsel, and the statements and points made in the arguments of the respondent's counsel, we find the substantive grounds of the motion were: (1) Excessive damages; (2) because the verdict was against evidence; (3) errors in law occurring at the trial.

We will dispose of these questions in the inverse order of their statement; and, in view of the conclusions we have arrived at, it will be necessary for us to consider at length only the points presented under the third ground enumerated, to-wit, errors in law occurring at the trial.

Upon the trial of the cause the appellant offered in evidence a quitclaim deed in the usual form from Frederick Schulenberg and wife to himself, executed and acknowledged on the twentieth day of December, 1869, conveying and quitclaiming all the right, title, and interest of the grantors in and to certain premises through which the railroad of respondent passes, and a portion of which is taken for the purposes of said road. The respondent objected to the admission of the deed because the same is immaterial, being executed and delivered subsequent to the condemnation of the property, and the filing of the report and award of the commissioners. This being the only objection made, so far as the paper book shows, we confine our attention to it.

The paper book gives us no information as to the authority by which the railroad company is incorporated; but from a reference in appellant's brief to chapter 34 of the General Statutes we infer that the company was incorporated under title 1 of that chapter, and that the provisions of that chapter are to govern us so far as they are applicable to the questions arising in this case. The award of the commissioners, as we learn from the notice of the appeal therefrom, was filed on the tenth day of November, 1869. The appeal was taken from the award of the commissioners on the twentieth day of December, 1869, the day of the execution of the quitclaim deed offered in evidence. We presume, in the absence of any objection, that the appeal was taken within the proper time. The only question necessary to be determined is whether the deed vested in Carli any title or interest in the property which entitled him to take the appeal from the award of the commissioners. At the time of the award of the commissioners, and until the execution of the deed, Schulenberg and wife, we must presume, were the owners in fee of the premises; by the execution of the deed they conveyed all their interest in the premises to Carli.

If the proceedings to condemn the property were completed, and the company acquired title to the easement, or right of way over the locus in quo, before the execution of the deed, Carli would take the premises subject to the right of the company, and the damages would inure to the owner of the land at the time the right vested in the company; but if the proceedings were not completed, but inchoate, and the company did not acquire a title to the easement prior to the execution of the deed, the premises passed to Carli, and he became the owner, and the right to damages was in him as incident to the ownership.

The mode of proceeding by which the company could acquire their rights in the premises is fully prescribed in title 1 of chapter 34 of the General Statutes, §§ 13-27.

By section 21 it is provided that upon the filing of the report of the commissioners the petitioners or any officers of, or other persons duly appointed by, the corporation may make payment of the damages assessed to parties entitled to the same, in the manner specified in this section; and receipts for such payments, filed in the office of the clerk, shall estop the parties giving them, and their principals, when they act in a representative capacity, from all further claims or proceedings in the premises. Section 22 provides that an appeal may be taken and prosecuted by any person interested.

Section 26 is as follows: "Upon verdict or assessment judgment shall be entered declaring that upon payment of the verdict or assessment and costs, if any, the right to construct said canal line, railroad, or improvement, * * * and do the act in controversy in said appeal, and to take, use, and appropriate any property in controversy on said appeal for the purposes aforesaid, shall, as against the parties interested in such verdict or assessment, be and remain in said corporation, their successors and assigns, forever; and payments of such judgments may be made as payments of assessments by the commissioners are made as hereinbefore provided;" and section 27 provides that when valid appeals are taken from the report of the commissioners, the judgment of the court upon such appeal, after the damages are paid, may be recorded in the office of the register of deeds where the said real estate or interest therein affected by said judgment is situated, and such record shall be notice and evidence of title, etc.

It is apparent, we think, from these sections that when an appeal is taken from the report of the commissioners, the title to the premises sought to be taken for the use of the road does not vest in the railroad company before judgment upon the verdict or assessment, and the conclusion is strengthened by a consideration of the other sections relating to this subject. It is not claimed that any payment was made by or on behalf of the company to Schulenberg under the provisions of section 21 referred to. The title to the premises remained, therefore, in the owner of the land during the time allowed for an appeal. Within this time, Schulenberg, the owner of the land, conveyed the premises to Carli, and the right to recover damages for the proposed taking of the premises for the use of the road passed to him as incident to the ownership of the land. The deed, therefore, was material to show his ownership, and was properly admitted in evidence. In view of this conclusion we need not consider the questions raised as to the evidence of Carli's equitable estate in the premises at the time of the award.

Four witnesses were called by ...