City of St. Louis v. Lanigan

• Decision Date: 04 February 1889
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. LANIGAN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 S.W. 475

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. LANIGAN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 4, 1889.

1. APPEAL — REVIEW — WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE — EMINENT DOMAIN.

The report of commissioners in condemnation proceedings will not be set aside on the evidence, unless the court is clearly satisfied that they have erred in the principles upon which they have made their appraisal.

2. SAME — RECORD — PRESUMPTION OF JURISDICTION.

The record being silent, it will be presumed that a court of general jurisdiction in some way acquired jurisdiction of all the defendants against whom it rendered judgment.

3. SAME — DECISION — REVERSAL.

A judgment in condemnation proceedings will not be reversed because of failure to obtain jurisdiction of certain defendants whose lands and interests are separate and distinct from those of the defendant who appeals.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. VALLIANT, Judge.

Proceedings by the city of St. Louis against Michael Lanigan, Peter Ratz, and others, to condemn land for extending and opening a street. The commissioners' report was confirmed, and defendant Ratz appeals.

W. F. McEntire, for appellant. Leverett Bell, W. F. Broadhead, and Alex. Martin, for respondent.

SHERWOOD, J.

This proceeding was instituted in the circuit court of St. Louis, for the purpose of extending and opening High street, which is numerically Twelfth street, from Lucas avenue to Franklin avenue. As might be readily suspected by those acquainted with the city of St. Louis in that locality, the opening of the street there involved the property rights and interests of a large number of defendant owners, and the record in consequence is very voluminous. On the coming in of the report of the commissioners three of the land-owners excepted. All of them, however, abandoned the contest as to the insufficiency of the damages awarded each of them, but Peter Ratz, who brings this cause here by appeal, alleging, as in the court below, the insufficiency of the damages awarded him. The exceptions came on to be heard; the court heard testimony; and, after carefully considering the same, overruled the exceptions, and confirmed the report of the commissioners.

The complaint made here is that the order of the court overruling defendant's exceptions "is against the weight of evidence." It has been established by a long line of decisions, so numerous as not to require their citation, that in law cases, aside from those where mistake, fraud, prejudice, or passion manifest themselves in the rendition of a verdict, this court will not interfere by weighing the evidence on which the verdict is founded. Obviously, the same rule must obtain in all other law cases.

The court below has advantages which this court does not possess, and cannot possess, in relation to the demeanor of witnesses who testify respecting the litigated matter. Even in equity cases, we defer somewhat to the views of the trial court. Besides, in cases of the sort now under consideration, it is to be observed that the judgment of the commissioners is not formed exclusively upon evidence submitted to them. They are required to view the premises, and they have the advantage of an actual personal inspection, and they are to be guided to some extent by that. Selected because of their capacity and fitness for the position they are called upon to fill; required to be disinterested; sworn to a faithful discharge of the duties imposed upon them, — their report should not be set aside but upon satisfactory grounds. The testimony of witnesses as to value, whether heard before the commissioners or subsequently, by the court on exceptions filed, though entitled to due consideration, is not controlling; and, "unless the court is clearly satisfied that they have erred in the principles upon which they have made their appraisal, there is nothing for review and their report should not be disturbed." Railroad Co. v. Richardson, 45 Mo. 466; Railroad Co. v. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585. Reading the testimony in this cause in the light of the authorities cited, no reason is seen calling upon this court to differ from the conclusion reached by the trial court as to the merits.

2. But it is urged that the judgment herein should be reversed because rendered against Henry Leamed and ...