Colorado M. Ry. Co. v. Croman

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
Citation27 P. 256,16 Colo. 381
PartiesCOLORADO M. RY. CO. v. CROMAN et al.
Decision Date27 April 1891

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Pitkin county.

This was a proceeding in condemnation, started by the railroad company in July, 1886, against Croman and numerous other parties, to obtain title to certain lands in the vicinity of the city of Aspen, required for trackage and other purposes. The properties across which the company sought to run its lines were sundry mining claims, averred to belong to various defendants, who were made parties to the suit. The petition contained all the averments essential to show interest in the defendants, and right on the part of the petitioners to condemn. In addition to these averments, the company set up that the land they wanted was within the limits of an agricultural entry made by Henry Hopkins, the grantor of one Van Hoevenbergh, who had deeded it to them. The appeal was perfected under the act of 1885, and there is nothing before this court but the abstract. Under the act, it is made incumbent upon the appellant to set forth in his abstract sufficient for a full understanding of the questions presented for decision. This abstract is made up almost wholly of statements which apparently are mere summaries of what the appellant judges was proven by the respective parties. No pleadings are set out, other than the petition and a disclaimer filed on behalf of Van Hoevenbergh. The only three claims which were awarded damages were the Home Stake the Mary B., and the Pride of Aspen. As to the balance the jury found that the owners would sustain no damage by the taking. The owners of the Home Stake introduced a receiver's receipt for their claim, issued in the month of May, 1886. As to the Pride of Aspen and the Mary B., it is recited that the claimants were the owners of the lode claims, and that location certificates thereof were introduced in evidence. Neither the dates of the certificates nor the time of the inception of the title of either of those claims appear. It is recited 'that all of the mining claims were located across the strike of the vein, which apparently dipped under the land sought to be condemned.' The discovery in each is conceded. No evidence was brought up which shows the direction or the course of the vein within the limits of the respective claims, or which indicates the point at which the lode comes nearest to the strip to be condemned. Neither side introduced evidence on this subect so far as can be learned from the record. The company introduced evidence showing that in June, 1885, Henry Hopkins made his final proof as an agricultural claimant of all of the land embraced within the strip in controversy, and in June, 1886, upon the payment of the price of agricultural land, received from the proper officers of the government a receiver's receipt therefor. Transfers from him to Van Hoevenbergh, and from Van Hoevenbergh to the company, were introduced without objection. The company proved the situs of the discovery shafts of these three claims but gave no other evidence as to the location of the vein with reference to the strip, or as to its direction within the claims.

Henry T. Rogers, A. E. Pattison, and Wilson & Stimson, for appellant.

BISSELL C., ( after stating the facts as above.)

Upon the record it is impossible for this court to do otherwise than affirm the judgment or order of condemnation. The objection that the testimony is insufficient to support it is not well taken. The appellants contend that under one instruction, which the court gave, they were entitled upon the testimony to have the verdict set aside. The court instructed the jury, in substance, that a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Mehta, 101,226.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • February 11, 2008
    ...being in some one other than the condemnor; the power to condemn negatives ownership in the condemnor. Colorado M. Ry. Co. v. Croman, 16 Colo. 381, 27 P. 256; Houston North Shore R. Co. v. Tyrrell, 128 Tex. 248, 98 S.W.2d 786, 108 A.L.R. 1508; 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 260, p. 1232; 18 Am.......
  • Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist. v. Cartwright, A-7153
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • November 11, 1959
    ...1137. If the petitioner in condemnation claims the fee title to the property, his petition should be dismissed. Colorado M. Railway Company v. Croman, 16 Colo. 381, 27 P. 256. 'Unless title in the condemnee is admitted the county court is without jurisdiction.' McInnis V. Brown County Water......
  • Demers v. City of Montpelier, 1854
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 6, 1958 the City by dedication and acceptance. Village of Olean v. Steyner, 135 N.Y. 341, 32 N.E. 9, 17 L.R.A. 640; Colorado M. Ry. Co. v. Croman, 16 Colo. 381, 384, 27 P. 256; 2 Lewis, Em.Dom., 3d Ed. § 660 p. 1137; See also, 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 266, p. 1239; 18 Am.Jur., Em.Dom., § 342, ......
  • Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. King
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • April 10, 1963
    ...the ownership being in some one other than the condemnor; the power to condemn negatives ownership in the condemnor.' Colorado M. Ry. Co. v. Croman, 16 Colo. 381, 27 P. 256; Houston North Shore R. Co. v. Tyrrell, 128 Tex. 248, 98 S.W.2d 786, 108 A.L.R. 1508; 29 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 260, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT