Chi. & G.T. Ry. Co. v. Hough

Citation61 Mich. 507,28 N.W. 532
PartiesCHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. v. HOUGH.
Decision Date10 June 1886
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

61 Mich. 507
28 N.W. 532

CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO.
v.
HOUGH.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 10, 1886.


Certiorari to commissioner and clerk.

[28 N.W. 533]

Wm. T. Mitchell, for petitioner.

Geer & Williams, for respondents.


CAMPBELL, C.J.

The certiorari in this case brings up the proceedings had to lay out a local highway across the railway of plaintiff; and, in addition to some irregularities and defects in the action of the commissioner, is based on his refusal to consider the damages which will accrue by the opening and maintenance of the highway, beyond the nominal sum of one dollar, at which he fixed the value of the land taken. He ruled out testimony which showed that the company would be put to an expense of over $180 for fencing cattle-guards and other outlays to complete the approaches, besides the cost of maintaining them. This he did on the ground that, under the statute, this outlay must be made by the company. Laws 1883, pp. 177, 178. This was the precise point decided in People v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 52 Mich. 277, S.C.17 N.W.Rep. 841, under the same section before it was amended in 1883. That decision was made after the law of 1883 was passed, and of course was not known to the legislature. The law of 1883 differs only in making express provision for awarding as damages the value of the land used for the crossing, but it retains the provision requiring the railroad to open and maintain, at its own expense, the highway and approaches, and the fences and cattle-guards made necessary by the crossing.

The damage to a railroad company by running a highway across it does not spring, to any considerable extent, from the mere fact of crossing, but from the additional outlay required in avoiding the perils of a crossing. The statute in question not only makes no provision for this, but imposes upon the railroad company the entire expense and duty of opening, completing, and maintaining the highway itself, and all the approaches and guards and fences. As shown in that case, this is imposing upon the private property of the company more than its proportionate share of a public burden, which can be of no possible use to it. The constitution expressly forbids any appropriation of private property without “just compensation.” There is no power in the legislature to create any exception to this rule, and nothing is just compensation which does not make good all the pecuniary loss or outlay occasioned to the owner by the appropriation of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State ex rel. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company v. District Court for Hennepin County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 26 December 1889
    ......Cent. R. Co. v. Boston, C. & F. R. Co., 121 Mass. 124; Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Hough, 61 Mich. 507, (28 N.W. 532;). Central R. Co. v. Bayonne, 51 N.J.L. 428,. (17 A. 971,) -- to ......
  • State v. District Court for Hennepin County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 26 December 1889
    ......Cent. R. Co. v. Boston, C. & F. R. Co., 121 Mass. 124; Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Hough, 61 Mich. 507, (28 N. W. Rep. 532;) Central R. Co. v. Bayonne, 51 N. J. Law, 428, (17 Atl. Rep. ......
  • Freehling v. Bresnahan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 10 June 1886
    ...Mich. 54028 N.W. 531FREEHLINGv.BRESNAHAN.Supreme Court of Michigan.June 10, 1886. Error to Muskegon. [28 N.W. 532] G.A. Wolf, for plaintiff and appellant.Ed. J. Smith and Nelson De Long, for defendant.CAMPBELL, C.J. Defendant, sheriff of Muskegon county, levied an attachment in favor of Geo......

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