Florida Southern Ry. Co. v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 15 May 1894
• Citation: 33 Fla. 631,15 So. 338
• Parties: FLORIDA SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. PARSONS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

15 So. 338

33 Fla. 631

FLORIDA SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. PARSONS.

Florida Supreme Court

May 15, 1894

Error to circuit court, Hernando county; G. A. Hanson, Judge.

Suit by L. B. Parsons against the Florida Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. The question of whether a plat or map offered in evidence is a correct representation of physical objects in reference to which testimony is introduced is for the court to decide primarily, and the decision of the court admitting such plat or map in evidence for the auxiliary purpose of enabling witnesses to explain their testimony will not be reversed unless it is clearly shown that error was thereby committed.

2. In an action of trespass to recover damages for constructing a railroad across lots and streets laid off on a town plat where the record of the plat is offered to show that the tract of land had been laid off into such town lots and streets, and the plat itself shows that when it was made and recorded the road had been constructed across the lots and streets, it is error to admit the plat for the purpose stated without proof that the land had been platted and dedicated as a town plat before the road was constructed. The damage in such a case is of a permanent nature, consisting in the construction of the railroad; and the railroad company is only liable for the damages to the land as it was when the road was built.

COUNSEL J. B. Wall and R. W. Davis, for plaintiff in error.

T. M Shackleford, for defendant in error.

OPINION

MABRY J.

Parsons sued the Florida Southern Railway Company in an action of trespass, and the declaration alleges, in substance, that the company, through its officers, agents, and contractors, on the 10th day of August, 1885, and on divers other days between that day and the institution of the suit with force and arms, broke and entered certain closes situated in said county, and described as the W. 1/2 of the N.W. 1/4 of section 26, township 22 S., range 19 E., and lots numbered 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 21 in Parsons' addition to the town of Brooksville, according to the official plat of the same, and situated in the E. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 of section 27, township 22 S., range 19 E., of which plaintiff was seised and possessed in fee, and dug excavations and ditches in all of said closes, threw up embankments, made grades for a railroad, and placed cross-ties and iron thereon, and appropriated the said portions of said closes to its own use, and continued to maintain said ditches, excavations, and embankments up to the commencement of the suit; thereby depriving the plaintiff of the benefits and advantages which he might and otherwise could have derived from the said closes, as well as materially lessening the market value of the same. And, further, that plaintiff was seised and possessed of the soil of certain streets, sixty feet wide, running through the said E. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 of section 27, township 22 S., range 19 E., to wit, a certain street immediately north of said lot 4, and those certain streets situated between and separating said lots 3 and 4, 3 and 7, 7 and 11, 11 and 12, 12 and 15, 13 and 14, 14 and 21, and that street lying immediately west of lot 5; and that the defendant company, through its officers, agents, and contractors, on the 10th day of August, 1885, and on divers other days between that day and the commencement of the suit, with force and arms entered upon said streets, and dug therein excavations and ditches, threw up embankments, made grades for a railroad, and placed cross-ties and iron thereon, and appropriated said places in said streets to its own use by taking possession of the same and constructing a railroad thereon, and continued to use the same up to the institution of the suit; thereby preventing plaintiff from using said streets or lots abutting thereon in so large and ample a manner as he might, and otherwise could, have done, and thereby materially lessening the market value of said closes. The total damage claimed was $5,000. The company interposed the plea of the general issue, and on the trial plaintiff obtained judgment for $1,070.

The first assignment of error argued is that 'the court erred in overruling objection to the introduction in evidence of the plat or map of the land in controversy, on the ground that the same was not a certified transcript from any...