Imbescheid v. Old Colony R. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1898 |
| Citation | 171 Mass. 209,50 N.E. 609 |
| Parties | IMBESCHEID v. OLD COLONY R. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
R.M. Morse and T.F. Meehan for petitioner.
J.H Benton, Jr., for respondent.
The verdict is for damages assessed at the sum of $17,478.40, as of the day when the land and buildings were taken, and for an added amount for interest from the time of the taking to the date of the verdict. The petitioner refused to vacate the land and buildings when requested after the taking, and continued to use and enjoy them for a year, and gave them up only when the respondent brought against him a bill in equity founded on the taking and the petitioner's refusal to give up possession. The question presented by the report is whether under these circumstances, the petitioner can recover in the present proceedings interest from the date of the taking.
The petitioner's loss of title occurred at the date of the taking. His compensation was then due, and his right to recover it with interest from that date is settled. Parks v. City of Boston, 15 Pick. 198, 208; Reed v Railroad Co., 105 Mass. 303; Hampden Paint & Chemical Co. v. Springfield, A. & N.E.R. Co., 124 Mass 118; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1, and cases cited; Chandler v. Aqueduct Corp., 125 Mass. 544, 550; Bancroft v. Cambridge, 126 Mass. 438, 440; Drury v. Railroad Co., 127 Mass. 571, 585; Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64; Railroad Co. v. Drury, 133 Mass. 167; Frazer v. Carpet Co., 141 Mass. 126, 4 N.E. 620; Sawyer v. Boston, 144 Mass. 470, 11 N.E. 711.
From the date of the taking, the petitioner's possession was no longer that of an owner, but of an occupant in possession without right, and against the defendant's right. Of whatever value this actual possession without right may have been to the petitioner, or whatever damage it may have caused to the defendant, it is immaterial to the present case. The statute makes no provision that such an occupation shall be considered in reduction of damages, or set off against interest. In many instances the whole of an owner's land is not taken, and the damages have regard not only to the value of the land taken, but to the effect of the taking upon the value of other lands of the same owner. It is important to have a definite rule for their assessment, and one as simple as may be. The rule adopted leaves upon one side unless perhaps where it is admitted that there has been a definite agreement of the parties to the contrary, all questions growing out of the occupancy of the premises by the former owner after the date of the taking, as well as all questions of agreement as to the mode of use of the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial