City of Grand Rapids v. Perkins

• Citation: 43 N.W. 1037,78 Mich. 93
• Parties: CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS v. PERKINS.
• Decision Date: 15 November 1889
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

78 Mich. 93
43 N.W. 1037

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
v.
PERKINS.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 15, 1889.

Case made from superior court of Grand Rapids; EDWIN A. BURLINGAME, Judge.

[43 N.W. 1037]

Taggard, Wolcott & Ganson, for appellant.

W. W. Taylor, ( J. W. Ransom, of counsel,) for appellee.

LONG, J.

This proceeding was instituted by the city of Grand Rapids under Act No. 124, Pub. Laws 1883, (How. St. 1295 et seq.) It was brought for the condemnation of nine parcels of land for the extension and improvement of one of the streets of the city. The cause was duly brought on for trial before a jury, proofs were introduced on either side of the controversy, and the case given to the jury under the charge of the court. After the jury had been in deliberation for some time, they returned into court and asked for further instructions, and the following proceedings were had: “ By a Juror to the Court. I am instructed by this jury to ask you this question: Can we award below the evidence or above it on any one parcel? By the Court. No, sir. By a Juror. That is what we wanted to know. The Court. Your view of the premises is a portion of the evidence in in the case. Mr. Tinker. I don't understand they can take their judgment upon that matter outside of the sworn evidence in the case, and award a judgment below or above that evidence; that is my view of the matter. Mr. Ransom, (city attorney.) As the court says, their view of the premises is a portion of the evidence in the case, and they are entitled to use their own judgment in connection with the evidence in the case,-it may be above or below. The Court. That is all I have to say. You cannot award a greater amount or a less amount than the evidence in the case would warrant. Your view of the premises is evidence in the case. Mr. Tinker. Give me an exception to the ruling.” The jury then retired, and, after being absent for a time, returned into court, and rendered a verdict for less than the lowest amount fixed by any witness giving his sworn testimony. The jury, under the direction of the court, during the proceedings had viewed the premises. The instruction given the jury, in effect, was that while they could not find the value of any parcel less or greater than the evidence fixed it, yet their view of the premises was a portion of the evidence by which they might be guided in their judgment of value. In effect, the jury were told that although witnesses were sworn in the

[43 N.W. 1038]

case, and gave testimony as to the...