Chicago & G.T. Ry. Co. v. Hough
| Decision Date | 10 June 1886 |
| Citation | 61 Mich. 507,28 N.W. 532 |
| Parties | CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. v. HOUGH. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Certiorari to commissioner and clerk.
Where a highway is laid across a railroad track, the company is entitled to compensation for completing the approaches, and for fences and cattle guards made necessary by the crossing and Laws 1883, pp. 177, 178, requiring the railroad to open and maintain, at its own expense, the highway and approaches and fences and cattle guards, made necessary by the crossing is in contravention of the constitutional provision forbidding any appropriation of private property without "just compensation."
p>Page Wm. T. Mitchell, for petitioner.
Geer & Williams, for respondents.
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. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial