Daigneault v. City of Woonsocket
| Decision Date | 11 October 1893 |
| Citation | 28 A. 346,18 R.I. 378 |
| Parties | DAIGNEAULT v. CITY OF WOONSOCKET. CHOQUETTE v. SAME. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Proceedings by the city of Woonsocket for the condemnation of land for sewerage purposes, as authorized by Pub. Laws, c. 1003. After the commissioners appointed by the city council to assess damages had made their report, Godfrey Daigneault and Cyrille Choquette filed their petitions for an assessment of damages by a jury, and their petitions were heard together. There was a verdict adverse to them, and they petition for a new trial. Granted.
James M. Ripley and Edwin Aldrich, for petitioners.
Walter I. Ballou, for respondent.
The court is of the opinion that a new trial must be granted. The report of the commissioners was clearly inadmissible. Ennis v. Railroad Co., 12 R. L 73. The ostensible reason for which the report was admitted was to show the date of condemnation; but this does not appear either in the report itself, or in the memoranda on it. Moreover, the date of condemnation, or the date when the title to the land vested in the city of Woonsocket so as to entitle the appellant to the value of it, was a question of law for the court, and not a question of fact for the jury, and depended on the time of the service of the notice on the party of the taking of his land. P. L. 1891, c. 1003, §§ 2, 3.1
The court is also of the opinion that, on the record as it stands, the testimony as to the value of the Ronian land was Improper by reason of its remoteness from the land in question and its dissimilarity to it, in that the Ronian land was high land, while that in question was low, meadow land. It has been suggested that there were other cases tried in connection with the present cases, and that some of the land involved in those cases lay near to the Ronian land, and was of a similar character; but the record, as made up, does not disclose these facts, and therefore we cannot take cognizance of them.
1 The second section of said act is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorham v. Public Bldg. Authority of City of Providence
...to the condemned property passed to condemning authority, giving the authority the right to possession); Daigneault v. City of Woonsocket, 18 R.I. 378, 380, 28 A. 346, 346 (1893) (date of condemnation is the date when title to the land vested in the city). With respect to the question of wh......
-
Corrado v. Providence Redevelopment Agency, 1360-A
...by the Agency and was, therefore, not premature within the rule stated in Goff v. Pawtucket, 13 R.I. 471 (1881), and Daigneault v. Woonsocket, 18 R.I. 378, 28 A. 346 (1893). Having concluded, then, that the trial justice had jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition to assess damages ......
- Vaill v. Town Council of New Shoreham
-
Hewitt v. Price
... ... Cummins v ... Railroad, 63 Iowa 397; Daignault v. Woonsocket (R ... I.), 28 A. 346; Standish v. Washburn, 21 Pick ... (Mass.) 237; Railroad v. Splitlog, ... ...