Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Hamilton Cnty.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 30286.,30286. |
| Citation | 182 Iowa 60,165 N.W. 390 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF HAMILTON COUNTY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; C. E. Albrook, Judge.
Supplemental opinion on petition for rehearing. Petition overruled.
For former opinion, see 162 N. W. 868.E. P. Prince, of Webster City, and J. C. Davis and Geo. E. Hise, both of Des Moines, for appellant.
D. C. Chase and J. M. Blake, both of Webster City, for appellee.
The trial court in disposing of the case below said, in substance, that the effect of drainage such as is involved in this controversy was to increase the productiveness of the soil in the country tributary to the railway, and thereby tend to increase the business of such railway as a carrier, and that this was a material fact to be considered in the assessment of benefits. Of this language the appellant complains.
[1][2] In affirming the judgment below, this court does not necessarily affirm the argument or reasoning by which the trial court came to its conclusion, and the fact that we did not mention the same in our former opinion is not to be construed as an approval. But to avoid any misapprehension in that respect, we have to say that, while all the benefits resulting to defendant's property within the district from the drainage improvement of such district must necessarily be considered in making the assessment, other benefits if any, resulting to the railway company or to its property because of the improved conditions of lands adjacent to the district, or because of any other resultingadvantages which it enjoys in common with the general public, are too remote and intangible to be made a basis of levying assessments.
With the foregoing addendum to the opinion as filed, the petition for rehearing is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Labaddie Bottoms River Protection Dist. v. Randall
...158 So. 123; Marshall v. Commrs. of Upper Cache Drain. Dist., 144 N.E. 321; Williams v. Hillman, 145 Pac. 1111; Chicago & N.Y. Ry. Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 165 N.W. 390; Cleveland, C.C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Mumford, 197 N.E. 826; Schafroth v. Buena Vista Co., 165 N.W. 341; Kansas City So......
- Labaddie Bottoms River Protection Dist. of Franklin County v. Randall
-
St. Louis==San Francisco Railway Co. v. State
... ... Ry. Co. v. Hamilton Co., 182 Iowa 60, 165 N.W ... 390, there is no question of notice at ... ...
-
Trs. of Iowa Coll. v. Baillie
...rulings standing as an adjudication. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Board of Sup'rs of Hamilton County, 182 Iowa 60, 83, 162 N.W. 868,165 N.W. 390;Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Blohm, 212 Iowa 89, 234 N.W. 268, and decisions cited therein. With this addition to the opinion as filed ......