Maysville & B.S.R. Co. v. Conner

• Decision Date: 06 February 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 344
• Parties: MAYSVILLE & B. S. R. CO. v. CONNER.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

29 S.W. 344

MAYSVILLE & B. S. R. CO. v. CONNER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 6, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Lewis county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by P. Conner against Maysville & Big Sandy Railroad Company for damages to land from the operation of defendant's road. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wadsworth & Cochran, for appellant.

Samuel J. Pugh, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

This is an appeal taken by the Maysville & Big Sandy Railroad Company from a judgment in the Lewis circuit court in favor of P Conner, against the appellant for the sum of $450. The suit was instituted by appellee to recover of defendant for damages to his property on Third street, in Vanceburgh, Ky caused by the improper and unreasonable manner of the building and operating defendant's road in and along said street. Appellant insists that the court erred in allowing appellee to testify as to the value of his property immediately before it became generally known that the road was to be located and built on said street, and as to its value immediately after the road was completed, and that the diminution in value was caused by the trouble and danger in getting to and from the property, the overflowing of the property, the noise and smoke, and inconvenience. On cross-examination he testified that one-half the damage ($300) was due to the overflow, and $300 for other damage. Appellant also complains that Mrs. Clark was allowed to testify that in her judgment the property was diminished in value one-half by the building of the road. Appellant also objects to instructions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 given on appellee's motion, and objects to the modification of No 4 asked by appellant. The instructions are as follows "No. 1. The court instructs the jury that it is admitted that the real estate of the plaintiff abuts upon Third street, in the city of Vanceburgh, and, further, that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant appropriated and obstructed the street so adjacent to the lot of plaintiff so as to have deprived the plaintiff of the reasonable use of said street as a means of ingress and egress by foot passengers and wheel vehicles, and the ordinary means of travel to and from the said lot, by the building and operating of its road, at the point mentioned, they will find for the plaintiff, and determine the damages as instructed in instruction number _____. No. 2. If the jury find for the plaintiff, in determining the damages they should...