Durham & N. B. Co v. Tr.S Of Bul Lock Church
Decision Date | 14 January 1890 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Durham & N. B. Co. v. Trustees of Bul lock Church. |
Eminent Domain —Compensation—Evidence — Procedure.
1. Where a railroad has condemned part of a church property, it is competent, for the purpose of proving that the value of the residue was impaired as church property by the location and use of the road, to show that horses could not be left on the grounds, as the passing trains frightened them, and rendered them unsafe, and that people would not go to the church to worship, as they were disturbed by the same causes.
2. In proving damages to property arising from the location of a railroad on it, it is competent to prove the value of the property before such location, preparatory to showing what it was worth after the road was constructed.
8. Where, in condemnation proceedings, plaintiff excepts to the report of the commissioners solely on the ground that the assessment was excessive, and defendants do not except at all, the inquiry before the court is not what damages defendants have sustained, but whether the assessment was excessive; and a judgment for defendants for a greater amount than the assessment, though entered on a verdict, and not excepted to, will, on appeal, be reduced to the extent of the excess over the commissioners' report.
Appeal from superior court, Granville
county; Groves, Judge.
Batchelor & Devereux, for appellant. Graham & Winston, for appellee.
The plaintiff brought its summary proceeding to condemn land of the defendants for the purpose of right of way for its railroad. Commissioners were appointed to view the land and assess damages. They afterwards did so, and made their report, to which the plaintiff excepted and objected, upon the ground that the damage assessed was excessive. In the superior court a proper issue was submit-ted to a jury. On the trial the parties examined divers witnesses. Certain of those examined by the defendants respectively testified as follows, plaintiff excepting to parts of their testimony as indicated in the course of their examination: The defendant introduced M. L. "Winston, who testified: " H. R. Gooch, witness for defendant, stated that the lot was in the shape of a parallelogram, with the railroad on the long side of it. On cross-examination, witness said: There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appealed to this court.
We need not trouble ourselves to settle here the particular rules to be observed in assessing damages under the statutory provisions of this state against railroad companies, occasioned by the location of the right of way for their railroads across the land of individuals, because the plaintiff requested the court, among other things, to instruct the jury "that the defendant is only entitled to recover such actual damages as result from the taking of the land, and such damages as directly flow therefrom, " and it gave this instruction. Indeed it gave all the instructions asked for by the plaintiff, with slight modification, to which there was no objection. The plaintiff cannot then complain of the instructions given. For the present purpose, treating them as correct, we are of opinion that the exceptions to evidence cannot be sustained. The evidence in respect to hitching horses, objected to, was not offered for the purpose of showing dam ages, special or otherwise, as suggested on the argument, but for the pertinent purpose of showing that the value of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long v. City of Charlotte
... ... City of Winston-Salem, 215 N.C. 1, 1 S.E.2d 88 (1939); Rhodes v. Durham, 165 N.C. 679, 81 S.E. 938 (1914) ... Modern ... R. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U.S. 317 [2 S.Ct. 719, 27 L.Ed. 739], an action lies, and because it ... ...
-
Lewisburg & N.R. Co. v. Hinds
... ... 362, 37 N.E. 1098, 26 L. R. A. 773; ... Railroad v. Church, 104 N.C. 531, 10 S.E. 761; ... Railroad v. Ball, 5 Ohio St. 575. In ... ...
-
Lewisburg & N. R. Co. v. Hinds
... ... 362, 37 N. E. 1098, 26 L. R. A. 773; Railroad v. Church, 104 N. C. 531, 10 S. E. 761; Railroad v. Ball, 5 Ohio St. 575. In fact ... ...
-
Raleigh, C. & S. Ry. v. Mecklenburg Mfg. Co.
... ... We do not perceive why the case of ... Railroad v. Church, 104 N.C. 529, 10 S.E. 761, is ... not an authority for the position ... ...