Hoffman v. Flint & P.M.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1897 |
| Citation | 72 N.W. 167,114 Mich. 316 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN v. FLINT & P. M. R. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, St. Clair county; James B. Eldredge, Judge.
Action by John M. Hoffman against the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
William T. Mitchell, for appellant.
Stevens & Graham, for appellee.
January 7, 1884, plaintiff became the owner of lot 43, lying east of Merchant street, and between the said street and the St Clair river, and claims to be the owner of the fee of said land to the center of Merchant street. In April, 1889, the defendant company purchased the Port Huron & Northwestern Railway. The last-named company built its road in front of the lot in question in 1880. Before doing so it obtained permission from the common council of the city of Port Huron to use the street for its railway, subject to the rights of the adjacent lot owners. The company also procured a release from Thomas S. Skinner. Mr. Skinner had no record title in the lot, but claimed an equitable interest to an undivided five-eighths of the lot. This suit was begun May 4 1894. The declaration filed in the case claims damages for injuries done to said lot by reason of the unauthorized use of said street in front of said lot, which makes egress and ingress to said lot difficult, and which, it is alleged continued from the 1st of May, 1888, from day to day, and continually, upon to the time of bringing the suit. No release was ever obtained from the owners of the record title of said lot 43 by the railroad company. Testimony offered on the part of the plaintiff tended to show that because of the use of the street by the railway company the lot has been depreciated in value $1,500. The testimony on the part of the defendant is to the effect that it has not been depreciated at all. The testimony also shows that the lot has been in the actual and undisputed possession of the plaintiff and his grantors and their tenants for over 20 years; that prior to plaintiff's obtaining title it was rented to William Le Blanc, a boat builder, from year to year, and that he was still in possession, occupying for the plaintiff. The testimony also discloses that the defendant company is now occupying the tracks in front of said lot and upon the siding on Commercial street in substantially the same manner as did the Port Huron & Northwestern Railway Company. When the testimony was all in, the judge charged the jury as follows: "It being established by the uncontradicted testimony in the case that the legal title to lot forty-three, the premises in queston, at the time the Port Huron & Northwestern Railway Company, the assignor of the defendant, entered upon and laid its main track and side tracks on the frontage of said lot on Merchant street, was in Calvin Ames, or his heirs at law, and that said title to lot forty-three did not pass to the plaintiff at all until at least three years after its construction by said company of its tracks on the frontage of said lot, and the plaintiff having made no proof of any assignment to him by said Ames, or his heirs at law, of his or their rights to have or collect the damages done to them by said action of said company, or their right to compensation for said appropriation of their land, and it appearing by competent and uncontradicted evidence that the said company was licensed and authorized by the city of construct and maintain its tracks in said street, the plaintiff in this action cannot recover for the diminution of the value of lot forty-three caused by said appropriation of the frontage of said lot, nor can he recover any damages for any injurious effects of the mere maintenance and use of the main and side tracks of said company in said street in the usual and ordinary way in which such tracks are used; and, as no other damage is alleged or shown, it is your duty to render a verdict in favor of the defendant, and so I instruct you to do." The plaintiff appeals.
No copy of plaintiff's deed to lot 43 is returned with the record, but it is not questioned by c...
To continue reading
Request your trial