Mason City & Ft. Dodge R. Co. v. Boynton

• Decision Date: 12 December 1907
• Docket Number: 2,172.
• Citation: 158 F. 599
• Parties: MASON CITY & FT. DODGE R. CO. v. BOYNTON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

158 F. 599

MASON CITY & FT. DODGE R. CO. v. BOYNTON.

No. 2,172.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 12, 1907

Syllabus by the Court

A claim that the damages are excessive, where it merely challenges a finding upon a question of fact, cannot be considered by the federal appellate courts.

Under the Iowa eminent domain statute (Code 1897, Secs. 2007, 2011) the court, on an appeal from the commissioners' assessment, cannot render a personal judgment against the condemnor for the landowner's damages, because the condemnor is free to decline to take the property at the assessment.

Where all questions of fact have been tried and determined without error, the incorporation in the judgment of provisions which are unauthorized does not necessitate a new trial, but only a modification of the judgment.

A. G Briggs, John L. Erdall, Thomas D. Healy, M. F. Healy, and Robert Healy, for plaintiff in error.

Benj. I. Salinger, for defendant in error.

Before VAN DEVANTER, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.

VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge.

This was a condemnation proceeding whereby the railroad company an Iowa corporation, sought to acquire, as a right of way for the construction and operation of its railroad, certain real property in Carroll county, Iowa, owned by Boynton, a citizen of Missouri. Commissioners appointed by the sheriff assessed the owner's damages at $4,750, and the railroad company having first deposited that sum with the sheriff, took possession of the property. The owner, being dissatisfied with the assessment, appealed therefrom to the district court of the county, and then, on the ground of the diverse citizenship of the parties, removed the proceeding into the Circuit Court of the United States. Upon a trial under a written stipulation waiving a jury, that court rendered a judgment (a) assessing the owner's damages at $10,000 with interest thereon from the time when the company took possession; (b) declaring that the proceeding had resulted in transferring the ownership to the railroad company; and (c) directing the company to pay the owner's damages and the costs of the proceeding, including $300 as a reasonable fee for the owner's attorneys. The railroad company sued out this writ of error.

The principal question arising upon the record, that of the right of the owner, whom the Iowa statute declares shall be the plaintiff, to remove the proceeding into the Circuit Court, was certified by us to the Supreme Court, and it, in response to the certification, has sustained the right of removal. Mason City, etc., Co. v. Boynton, 204 U.S. 570, 27 Sup.Ct. 321, 51 L.Ed. 629. It is now earnestly insisted that the damages are excessive, but as this contention, in the circumstances in which it is here made, merely challenges a finding upon a question of fact, it is not open to consideration by us. Rev. St. Secs. 649, 700, 1011 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 525, 570, 715); Hall v. Houghton & Upp Mercantile Co., 8 C.C.A. 661, 60 F. 350; Southern Pacific Co. v. Maloney, 69 C.C.A. 83, 136 F. 171; Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Davies, 76 C.C.A. 613, 146 F. 247; Omaha Water Co. v. Schamel, 78 C.C.A. 68, 147 F. 502; Nelson v. Bank of Fergus County, 84 C.C.A. 609, 157 F. 161.

Other contentions make it necessary to determine whether the judgment conforms to the statute under which the proceeding was had, and, if not, whether the...