Coughlin v. Chicago

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SIMPSON, C.
• Citation: Coughlin v. Chicago, 13 P. 813, 36 Kan. 422 (Kan. 1887)
• Decision Date: 06 May 1887
• Parties: RICHARD COUGHLEN v. THE CHICAGO, IOWA & KANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY

13 P. 813

36 Kan. 422

RICHARD COUGHLEN v. THE CHICAGO, IOWA & KANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 6, 1887

Error from Cloud District Court.

THE opinion states the case.

Judgment affirmed.

L. J Orans, for plaintiff in error.

W. W Guthrie, for defendant in error.

SIMPSON C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

SIMPSON, C.

This was an appeal to the district court of Cloud county, from an award of commissioners appointed by the judge of the 12th judicial district of the state on the application of the defendant in error, to lay off a route for such railway in Cloud county, and to appraise the value of and assess the damages to land appropriated to its right-of-way, etc. The case was tried at the June term, 1885, by a jury. During the trial the court ordered that the jury be taken, in charge of the sheriff of the county, to the premises in question for the purpose "of viewing the land in dispute." The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in error, and assessed the amount of his recovery at the sum of $ 598.25. There was a motion for a new trial by the plaintiff in error, which was overruled; and plaintiff in error brings the case here.

Only two assignments of error are discussed in the brief of counsel, and insisted on in this court, and both of these have been practically passed upon by the court. The first is, that the findings of the jury and their verdict are not sustained by sufficient evidence as to the value of the land and the assessment of damages, they both being too small. The second is, that the court erred in making the order allowing the jury to view the premises.

As to the first, we can only repeat what has been so often said, that the value of the land and the amount of the damages are questions peculiarly within the province of the jury to determine, and if there is any evidence to sustain the verdict, and it has been approved by the trial court, it will not be disturbed in this court.

As to the second, this court has said in K. C. Rly. Co. v Allen, 22 Kan. 285, (a case similar to this,) "that the matter of viewing the premises is left by the statute to the discretion of the court." In that case it was held not to be error to refuse to allow the jury to "view." In this case it is held not to be error to order them to be taken to "view" in charge of an officer. We will not undertake to discuss the varying impressions that might be conveyed to...