Dardanelle Pontoon Bridge & Turnpike Co. v. Shinn
Decision Date | 14 October 1893 |
Citation | 23 S.W. 584 |
Parties | DARDANELLE PONTOON BRIDGE & TURNPIKE CO. v. SHINN. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Conway county; Jeremiah G. Wallace, Judge.
Condemnation proceedings by the Dardanelle Pontoon Bridge & Turnpike Company against J. L. Shinn. From a judgment rendered on the award of damages said company appeals. Affirmed.
W. D. Jacoway, L. C. Hall, and Carter & Davis, for appellant. D. B. Granger, R. B. Wilson, R. C. Bullock, and G. W. Shinn, for appellee.
In proceedings under the statute to condemn land for purposes of a bridge site, abutment and approach to the bridge, and right of way to the bridge from the public road, leading from the town of Dardanelle, in Yell county, to the town of Russellville, in Pope county, Ark., the appellant obtained a judgment for the condemnation of a strip of land 50 feet wide and 2,000 feet long on the north bank of the Arkansas river, opposite the town of Dardanelle, at which point the bridge was to be, and is claimed to have been, constructed across the Arkansas river by the appellant. The strip of land taken and condemned was a part of a valuable tract of 200 acres owned by the appellee, and from which he had for years operated a public ferry across the Arkansas river, under a license from the county court, and was so operating said ferry at the time of the taking of said strip. The abutment of the bridge on that side of the river was constructed on said appellee's land at an important ferry landing of the appellee, and deprived him of the use of it. The ferry was a valuable one, yielding annually to the appellee a net income of four or five thousand dollars. It appears from the testimony of several witnesses, well acquainted with the land and the situation of the bridge, that in their opinion the land taken from the appellee for bridge site was alone, regardless of the ferry, worth $5,000, and for this sum the jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee, and judgment was rendered accordingly. From this judgment appeals were taken to this court by both parties, but the appellee has abandoned his cross appeal.
The abstract made by appellant sets out requests for 10 instructions by the circuit court, which were refused, but does not set out the instructions given by the court, though it appears several were given. This is a failure to comply with rule 9 of this court, which declines to search the voluminous transcript for the instructions given.
The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial