In re Improvement of Third Street, St. Paul
| Decision Date | 12 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | 27,126 |
| Citation | 225 N.W. 92,177 Minn. 159 |
| Parties | IN RE IMPROVEMENT OF THIRD STREET, ST. PAUL; WILLIAM C. RILEY, APPELLANT |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
William C. Riley appealed from a judgment of the district court for Ramsey county, Bechhoefer, J. confirming an award by the city council in a proceeding to condemn land for the improvement of Third street in the city of St. Paul. Affirmed.
When owner of land condemned for widening street cannot claim damages for future change of grade.
1. Where part of a tract of land is condemned for the widening of a street and no proceeding for any change of grade is involved, the landowner cannot claim damages on the theory that there may at some future time be a change of the grade of the street. If such change of grade is later undertaken his right then to receive damages therefor is not affected or jeopardized by the condemnation proceeding.
When owner is entitled to damages equal to market value of the land taken.
2. Where part of a tract of land is condemned and no question of benefits to the remaining land is involved, the landowner is entitled to damages at least to the extent of the market value of the land taken, in the condition and situation it then occupies, not as an isolated tract but as part of the whole.
When award should be set aside.
Where in such case the damages awarded are clearly inadequate and grossly disproportionate to the value of the land taken, as shown by the evidence, the award is not fair and impartial and should be set aside.
Eminent Domain, 20 C.J. § 189 p. 732 n. 52; § 432 p. 1047 n. 80.
See note in 47 L.R.A.(N.S.) 462; 10 R.C.L. 155.
O'Brien, Horn & Stringer, for appellant.
Eugene M. O'Neill and Lewis L. Anderson, for respondent.
Appeal by William C. Riley from a judgment of the district court confirming an award of damages in a condemnation proceeding.
This is in the same proceeding involved in the Ryan case, 177 Minn. 146, 225 N.W. 86.The opinion in that case is filed herewith and reference thereto is hereby made. All questions raised in this case, except as hereinafter noted, are decided by the Ryan case.
Appellant is the owner of a tract of land with a frontage of about 184.6 feet on Third street and running back about 144 feet. The property is on the northerly side of the street and fronts to the south. There is no alley in the rear of the land, and the only access over any public way is that afforded by Third street. The land is platted and consists of three full lots and parts of two others. The location is between Jackson and Robert streets, and the easterly line thereof is 60.14 feet from Jackson street. It is proposed to take from appellant's tract a triangular piece of land with a base of 27.79 feet at the east line of the tract and tapering to a point at the southwest corner thereof, the perpendicular line being the street frontage line. The area taken is 2,565 square feet out a total of 26,635 square feet. The award made was $3,231.
1. It is claimed here, as in the Ryan case, 177 Minn. 146, 225 N.W. 86, that there is no sufficient showing as to the purpose for which the land is taken. It is quite clear from the maps and records that this strip is taken for the purpose of widening Third street. But it is said that there are no definite plans for the widening, and that for all that appears there may be such change of grade or other change in the street as to interfere with the access to the street from the remaining property. If there should at some future time be any such change of grade or obstruction of access to the street, appellant's right then to receive compensation for any damage done is clear. There is nothing in the present proceeding to affect or jeopardize his rights in that respect.
2. The important question here is whether fair compensation was awarded for the land taken. We are mindful of the rule that, if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the findings of the trial court, this court may not set aside the decision on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the findings and judgment.
Appellant's property is valuable. It is located less than a block from such large buildings as the Great Northern building on Jackson street, and the Merchants National Bank and Pioneer buildings on Robert street. In 1925 old buildings standing on the property, fronting on Third street, were removed and the ground leveled off for parking space for automobiles, for which compensation is charged. It has since been used for that purpose and is valuable for such use.
There is not much dispute in the evidence as to the value of the tract as a whole. Such value is placed at not less than $66,587 and not more than $70,000. Figured in percentage, the land taken amounts to 9.63 per cent of the whole. It is reasonable, and practically conceded, that the part of the property nearest the street, out of which this strip is taken, is more valuable than the rear part of the lots. In fixing the amount of the award, the appraisers for the city figured the damages on...
To continue reading
Request your trial