McElroy v. Kansas City & I. Air Line.
Decision Date | 03 February 1903 |
Parties | McELROY v. KANSAS CITY & I. AIR LINE. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
2. A railroad company contracted with a property owner that on payment of a bonus the company was to have license to continue the construction of its road over his premises in advance of acquiring title, which was to be done either by a subsequent agreement or by condemnation proceedings, and that in such condemnation the property owner was to be paid "the value of the bridge abutments on his land, as well as for the land taken," and the bonus paid was not to be considered in any manner. Held, that under this contract the owner of the land was entitled to recover the value of the land taken irrespective of any special benefits to the rest by reason of the construction of the road; no damages therefor being sought.
3. A railroad company had entered on the land of another and commenced to construct its road, when work was stopped by an injunction. Thereupon the company and the property owner entered into a contract whereby the company obtained license to continue the construction of the road, and agreed to pay for the land taken; the compensation to be determined on at a future date. This was never done, and the property owner brought suit to recover the land. Held, that the value of the land was to be ascertained as of the date of the company's entry thereon.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County.
Action by Hugh L. McElroy against the Kansas City & Independence Air Line. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action bottomed on a contract for the value of a strip of plaintiff's land taken by defendant for railroad purposes, and also the value of certain stone abutments, situated on the land taken, and used by defendant in the construction of its railroad. In December, 1891, the defendant company, without the consent of plaintiff, entered upon the strip of land in question and began the construction of its road across it, whereupon plaintiff began suit by injunction against defendant to prevent it from proceeding with the work. Thereafter, on December 31, 1891, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract, which is as follows:
The petition alleges that in accordance with the provisions of said contract the defendant did enter upon the tracts of land sued for and construct a line of railway, and, though frequently requested, has failed and refused to institute the condemnation proceeding so agreed to be brought, or to pay to the plaintiff the fair and reasonable value of the land so taken by defendant, the damage done to the remainder of the tract, and the value of the bridge abutments; that in December, 1891, and January, 1892, the fair and reasonable market value of the tracts of land in question was, and ever since has been, the sum of $8,000, and the value of the bridge abutments on said land was $2,000; and that the remainder of one of the tracts of land in question was damaged in the sum of $5,000.
Defendant by its answer admits that it is a corporation, admits the execution of the contract sued on, admits that the defendant did construct on the land a line of railway, and alleges that said railway was constructed by permission of and pursuant to said contract. The answer then denies all other allegations in the petition.
On the trial of the case, evidence was introduced by plaintiff tending to show the value of the land taken in December, 1891; and, although the petition asked for damages to the remainder of the tract not taken, the plaintiff introduced no evidence as to such damages, and did not attempt to recover therefor. On the trial of the case the court refused to permit defendant to show any "special" or "peculiar" benefits accruing from the building of the railroad to the remainder of plaintiff's tract not taken. The court also confined the time of the determination of the value of the plaintiff's land taken to December, 1891. Defendant excepted to the ruling of the court in both of these particulars. Both sides introduced evidence as to the value of the land. The defendant by the ruling of the court was confined to its value in December, 1891.
Over the objection and exception of defendant, the court instructed the jury, at the instance of plaintiff, as follows:
Thereupon the defendant requested the court to give the jury the following instructions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. v. Day et al.
...St. Louis, etc., R.R. Co. v. Fowler, 142 Mo. 670; Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. McElroy, 161 Mo. 576, 72 S.W. 913; McElroy v. Kansas City Air Line, 172 Mo. 546, 72 S.W. 913; Miller v. St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co., 162 Mo. 424, 63 S.W. 85; Hosher v. Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co., 60 Mo. 303; Sedali......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Cox
... ... Ry. Co. v. McGrew, 104 Mo. 290, 15 S.W. 932; ... Prairie Pipe Line Co. v. Shipp, 305 Mo. 671, 267 ... S.W. 649. (c) Instruction 6 excludes ... Highway Comm. v. Watkins, 51 S.W.2d 545; Gates v ... Kansas City, 111 Mo. 34, 19 S.W. 957; Duckert v. Ry ... Co., 163 Mo. 260, 63 ... 491; Randolph ... v. Townsite Co., 103 Mo. 451, 15 S.W. 437; McElroy ... v. Airline, 172 Mo. 546, 72 S.W. 913; Met. St. Ry ... Co. v ... ...
-
Sullivan v. Union Elec. Light & Power Co.
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. John W ... Calhoun , Judge; ... ... Oklahoma, 295 Mo. 353, 244 S.W. 924; Martin v ... Kansas City, 224 S.W. 141; Disbrow v. Peoples ... Co., 170 Mo.App. 585; ... street car line, the north track being used by the westbound ... cars and the south track ... ...
-
State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Day
... ... K ... C. Street Ry., 110 Mo. 484, 19 S.W. 824; Ragan v ... Kansas City, etc., Ry., 111 Mo. 456, 20 S.W. 234; ... Lingo v. Burford, 112 Mo ... R. Co. v. Fowler, 142 Mo ... 670; Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co. v. McElroy, 161 Mo ... 576, 72 S.W. 913; McElroy v. Kansas City Air Line, ... 172 ... ...