Colburn v. Del. River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n

• Decision Date: 22 September 1939
• Docket Number: No. 5.,5.
• Citation: 123 N.J.L. 197,8 A.2d 563
• Parties: COLBURN et al. v. DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

8 A.2d 563

123 N.J.L. 197

COLBURN et al.

v. DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION.

No. 5.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 22, 1939.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Held, under R.S. 32:8-4, N.J.S.A. 32:-8—4, respondents were entitled to be compensated for damage to their lands by reason of the erection of a bridge and abutments by the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that no part of their lands were actually taken by the appellant 2. Held, the statute is broad enough to require anyone having an interest in lands to be compensated for his damage and is not limited to the holder of title to the lands.

3. Held, it was not harmful error to permit evidence of the value of the lands at the trial where the issue to be determined was whether or not there had been damage to the lands.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Mandamus proceeding by John D. Colburn and others against the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission to determine the question of the right of the relators to have damages assessed for the alleged injury to their property by reason of the construction of a bridge under the control and supervision of the respondent. From a judgment in favor of the relators, 119 N.J.L. 600, 197 A. 896, the respondent appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

John H. Pursel, of Phillipsburg, and Edward P. Stout, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Robert B. Meyner, of Phillipsburg, for respondents.

DONGES, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court allowing a writ of mandamus. It brings up the question of the right of the relators to have damages assessed for alleged injury to their property by reason of the construction of the Phillipsburg-Easton bridge under the control and supervision of the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission. This Commission was created by Chapter 297 of the Laws of 1912.

The relators have property in the vicinity of the abutments and approaches of the bridge. None of their property was actually taken. Their claim is for consequential damage by the closing of streets and by the obstruction of view and limitation of light and air by the construction of the abutments and approaches.

In the opinion of Mr. Justice Parker, Klement v. Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission Pennsylvania-New Jersey, 119 N.J.L. 600, 197 A. 896, it is pointed out that under the law of New Jersey there could be no recovery for these consequential damages, in the absence of some statute. It appears, however, that the Act of 1912, as amended, now R.S. 32:9-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 32:9-l et seq., an act which purports to be a joint act of the state of Pennsylvania and the state of New Jersey, acting through their several legislatures, provides for the payment of damages for injuries alleged to be suffered. In R.S. 32:8-4, N.J.S.A. 32:8-4, the power of condemnation and matters relating thereto are dealt with and the term "real property" is defined as follows: "The term 'real property' as used in this compact includes lands, structures, franchises, and interests in land, including lands under water and riparian rights, and any and all things and rights usually included within the said term, and includes not only fees simple and absolute, but also any and all lesser interests, such as easements, rights of way, uses, leases, licenses, and all other incorporated (incorporeal) hereditaments and every estate, interest or right, legal or equitable, including terms of years and...