Little Rock & fort Smith Railway Company v. Evins
Decision Date | 08 July 1905 |
Citation | 88 S.W. 992,76 Ark. 261 |
Parties | LITTLE ROCK & FORT SMITH RAILWAY COMPANY v. EVINS |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court JEPTHA H. EVANS, Judge.
Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Oscar L. Miles, for appellant.
The description of the land in the deeds introduced in evidence was insufficient to identify the land. 3 Ark. 18; 15 Ark 297; 48 Ark. 419; 60 Ark. 487; 56 Ark. 175; 68 Ark. 150. The court erred in admitting testimony as to the measure of damages for the right of way across the land. 54 Ark. 140; 42 Wis. 538; 55 Ark. 70; 59 Ark. 110; 62 Ark. 7; 70 Ark. 403; 68 Ark. 224.
Cravens & Covington, for appellee.
The description contained in the deeds was sufficient. 64 Ark 580; 66 Ark. 422. The judgment as to damages was proper. 41 Ark. 202; 51 Ark. 324.
Joseph Evins sued the Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Company for damages caused by the use and appropriation of his lands by the defendant for a right of way for its railway. The defendant denied the appropriation and damage. Plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant for $ 380, and the defendant appealed.
It is contended by appellant that the description of the land in the deed adduced by the appellee in the trial of this action as evidence of his title to the land appropriated for right of way was not sufficient to identify the land. It is described in one deed as N. E. fr. quarter of the N. E. fr. quarter, section 22-8-22 W., and in the other, N. E. fr. N. E. quarter of section 22, township 8 N, range 22 W. It was described in both deeds as situated in the county of Johnson, in this State. It was admitted by the parties that the tract in controversy contained seven and nine-hundredths acres. We understand from this description that the land meant is the northeast fractional quarter of the northeast quarter of section twenty-two, in township eight north, and in range twenty-two west, situated in the county of Johnson, in the State of Arkansas. This description is sufficient. Chestnut v. Harris, 64 Ark. 580, 43 S.W. 977; Boles v. McNeil, 66 Ark. 422, 51 S.W. 71.
It is contended by the appellant that the evidence admitted to prove damages was incompetent, because it did not show the market value of the land.
The testimony of Joseph Evins in the trial of the action, by question and answer, was in part as follows:
The defendant objected, and the court said, "He can state what he thinks was the market value of the land before and after taking."
The witness, being asked a question, said: "I ask the court to enlighten me," and the court asked, "What is the difference between the value of that land before the railroad took this right of way and after the road appropriated the right of way?"
The witness answered: "About half the whole piece of land; and I think the front land is worth $ 250 per acre; and the other perhaps one-half--$ 125--south of the proposed new line."
C. A. Holt was asked and answered, in part, as follows:
S. M. Brown: "
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Magness
...47 Ark. 340; 76 Ark. 548; 86 Ark. 406. Testimony as to the decreased value of the land was properly admitted. 51 Ark. 324; 86 Ark. 96; 76 Ark. 261; 67 Ark. The nuisance complained of was of a permanent character, and should be fully compensated. 35 Ark. 623; 39 Ark. 463; 52 Ark. 240; 86 Ark......
-
Eagle v. Oldham
...testator's intention. The township and range are not regarded as essential where the land can be identified in other ways. 64 Ark. 580; 76 Ark. 261; 8 Vin. Abr. Tit. Devise 51, pl. 21. The weight of modern authority is to construe wills in accordance with the intention of the testator where......
-
Arbogast v. Pilot Rock Lumber Co.
...of section 29, and the north half of the northeast quarter of section 32.' See 1 Patton, supra, § 160, also, Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Evans, 76 Ark. 261, 88 S.W. 992. We think the same common knowledge and experience prevails in this In the briefs of the parties, as well as in the fo......
-
Buckner v. Sugg
...401; 194 Ill. 24; 86 Md. 440; 34 Minn. 67; 45 Minn. 502; 64 Ark. 580; 66 Ark. 422; 59 Ark. 22; 40 Ark. 237; 68 Ark. 544; 73 Ark. 221; 76 Ark. 261; Ark. 114; Kirby's Digest, § § 6976, 6980, 6989. Driver & Harrison, for appellee. If the land was subject to taxation, it was not as "section 12"......