Chouteau v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 18 November 1879
• Citation: 8 Mo.App. 48
• Parties: NORBERT S. CHOUTEAU, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

8 Mo.App. 48

NORBERT S. CHOUTEAU, Appellant,

v.CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Nov. 18, 1879.

For permanent injury to real estate, the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the land immediately before the injury occurred and the like value after the injury is complete; and, in the absence of actual sale, these values may be shown by the testimony of experts.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Reversed and remanded.

GIDEON D. BANTZ and A. A. CHOUTEAU, for the appellant: Damages extend to the property improved, as well as to the improvements.-- Dalzell v. Davenport, 12 Iowa, 437. The damage for which the plaintiff is entitled to recover is such as is the natural and proximate consequence of the defendant's act.-- White v. Moseley, 8 Pick. 356; Bennett v. Lockwood, 20 Wend. 223. It is proper to arrive at the amount of damage by inquiring as to the value of the property before and after the injury.-- Streett v. Laumier, 34 Mo. 469; Evans v. Elliott, 20 Ind. 283.

LEVERETT BELL, for the respondent.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to recover damages sustained by plaintiff as owner of a lot of ground and the improvements thereon, occasioned, as it is said, by the construction of a bridge on Twelfth Street, St. Louis, which raises the road-bed of the street so as to change the principal current of travel and transportation.

The facts as to the change of grade are undisputed, and are similar to those set forth in the opinion of this court in Stickford v. St. Louis, 7 Mo. App. 217. Under the ruling in that case, there can be no doubt that the city is liable for any actual damage suffered by plaintiff from the erection of the bridge.

On the trial, plaintiff introduced, as experts, real-estate dealers familiar with the value of property in the neighborhood, who testified that the property was depreciated in value $50 a foot by the erection of the bridge. Plaintiff also testified as an expert and dealer in real estate, and said that the lot was worth $200 a foot before the bridge was put up, and $125 a foot immediately afterwards. The bridge was erected in 1875. A five-years' lease of the property, which expired in 1877, was renewed by the same parties for another term of five years, at the same rent. Plaintiff testified that after the bridge was erected the property was not worth the former rent, and that he could not have got the same rent on the renewal of the lease but for the fact that his brothers and sisters, who have another frontage, joined with him in the lease.

At the close of plaintiff's case, the court, before whom the cause was tried without a jury, gave an instruction that, on the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Defendant introduced no testimony. There was a finding and judgment for defendant.

It is contended by respondent that the demurrer to plaintiff's evidence was rightly sustained, because no damages were proved. As to this, he says that, inasmuch as there had been no loss of rent, the damages are purely speculative, as plaintiff has not sold, and has not been compelled to take a less price than he could otherwise have obtained. This is the only point discussed or alluded to, in this court, by counsel for respondent.

Where the question is of a permanent injury, and not of a merely temporary nuisance, the measure of damages would seem to be the difference between the market value of the land...