North American Telegraph Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 5013. |
| Parties | NORTH AMERICAN TELEGRAPH CO. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. T Young and O'Brien, Young, Stone & Horn, all of St. Paul Minn., for plaintiff in error.
D. F Lyons, of St. Paul, Minn. (C. W. Bunn, of St. Paul, Minn., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
This is a proceeding brought by the North American Telegraph Company as plaintiff to condemn a right of way for a telegraph pole line on the railroad right of way of the defendant, the Northern Pacific Railway Company, from White Bear to Duluth Minn., a distance of 138 miles, and from White Bear to Stillwater, a distance of 12 miles, under section 6246 of the General Statutes of Minnesota for 1913. The case was before this court and was carefully examined in an opinion reported in 230 F. 347, 144 C.C.A. 489, L.R.A. 1916E, 572. The decision of the trial court was there reversed, because it failed to receive evidence which we deemed necessary to show the true value of the property, and because the rule of damages adopted was erroneous. On the second trial the rejected evidence was received, and the rule of damages formulated by this court was stated, with explanations which gave plaintiff no cause for exception. The jury returned a verdict for $16,850, upon which judgment was entered, and plaintiff brings error.
The only exceptions urged in argument of sufficient merit to require mention are these: Mr. Baker, superintendent of the Postal Telegraph Company, testified that he had acquired at the price of $10 per mile, rights over several Southern and Southwestern railroads identical with those sought by plaintiff. Counsel insists that this practice established a 'market value' for the right, to which the jury should have been restricted, and excepted to the use of any other standard. The trial court also received, over plaintiff's objection, evidence of witnesses produced by defendant of the annual rental paid for such easements for limited terms of years, and then permitted the witnesses to state what that rental would amount to if capitalized at 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 per cent. Counsel insists that such a valuation would be proper only in case the fee to the property was taken; and, as the statute provides that plaintiff's right is subject to termination whenever the property shall be needed by the railway company for its own purposes, it is urged that the reception of this evidence was highly prejudicial. We might content ourselves by simply referring to our opinion when the case was here before. We then stated that rental value was a proper element for consideration in assessing damages. For the reasons there given, we still adhere to that opinion. As we then explained, such a valuation is not to be used as a mathematical formula. It should be qualified by the limited nature of the right, and that was clearly done by the trial judge. It then constituted one of the most valuable elements for the consideration of the jury.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Crary
...is usually used in condemnation cases in its secondary or figurative sense as meaning the fair value. North American Tel. Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 254 F. 417, 418. Hence I believe that the value of land sought to be taken is the price it would bring if offered for sale by one......
-
Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Snyder Estate Co.
...to which it may be devoted. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 25 L. Ed. 206; North American Telegraph Co. v. Northern Pacific R. Co. (C. C. A. 8) 254 F. 417; St. Louis, M. & S. E. R. Co. v. Continental Brick Co., 198 Mo. 698, 96 S. W. 1011; San Diego Land & Town C......
-
Olson v. United States Karlson v. Same Brewster v. Same 8212 582
...481, 489; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. North American Tel. Co. (C.C.A.) 230 F. 347, 356, L.R.A. 1916E, 572; North American Telegraph Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C.C.A.) 254 F. 417, 419; United States v. Boston, C.C. & N.Y. Canal Co. (C.C.A.) 271 F. 877, 893; Ford Hydro-Electric Co. v. Neely (......
-
Walsh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...6 Wheat. 264, 398, 399, 5 L.Ed. 257." Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. North American Tel. Co., 8 Cir., 230 F. 347, 355, L.R.A.1916E, 572; Id., 8 Cir., 254 F. 417, certiorari denied, 249 U.S. 607, 39 S.Ct. 290, 63 L.Ed. See and compare, also, Osaka Shosen Kaisha Line v. United States, 300 U.S. 98, ......