Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. Waller

Decision Date04 June 1958
Docket NumberNo. 8568,8568
Citation80 Idaho 105,326 P.2d 388
PartiesPACIFIC NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORPORATION, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ewell J. WALLER and Nell R. Waller, husband and wife, Bankers Life Company of Des Moines, Iowa, a corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

Elder, Elder, Cox & Mitchell, Coeur d'Alene, for appellants.

Sidney E. Smith, Coeur d'Alene, for respondent.

KEETON, Chief Justice.

Respondent will be referred to as plaintiff and appellants as defendants.

Plaintiff sought in this action, commenced May 31, 1956, to secure by condemnation, a limited right of way and easement across land owned by defendants for the purpose of constructing a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas. Concurrently with the filing of the complaint and issuance of the summons, plaintiff served a notice upon defendants that on June 16th it would apply to the court for an order appointing three commissioners to assess defendants' damages.

Hearing was had as noticed, evidence received, and the court found and decreed that plaintiff was clothed with the power to secure property by eminent domain; that the use of the land sought to be taken was one authorized by law, and appointed commissioners under the procedure authorized by Sec. 7-717, I.C. to assess and determine the damages that defendants would sustain by reason of the condemnation and appropriation of the right of way and easement prayed for.

Both parties appeared before the commissioners at the time and place fixed, introduced evidence, and the commissioners under date of July 16, 1956, determined the amount of damages defendants would sustain by reason of the taking, and filed their report with the district court clerk.

Plaintiff refused to pay the amount fixed by the commissioners, did not take possession of the land sought to be condemned, nor ask that the court grant immediate possession. Defendants then moved the court to enter judgment against plaintiff for the amount of damages determined by the commissioners. The trial court refused.

The issue of damages was thereafter, over defendants' objection, set for trial before a jury, and tried in April, 1957, the only issue to be determined being the amount of damages sustained. The jury returned a verdict for defendants in a lesser sum than the amount found by the commissioners. The court thereupon entered judgment and decree of condemnation and awarded damages in the amount determined by the jury, to bear interest at six percent from and after May 31, 1956.

In specifications of error, defendants contend that the damages should be the amount fixed by the commissioners and not the amount determined by the jury, and submit the following question for decision:

'Is a condemning party at liberty to voluntarily seek the appointment of commissioners to determine the award due a condemnee, and then obtain a jury trial on the same question without ever excepting or objecting to the commissioners' award when it has been duly filed?'

Sec. 7-717, I.C. provides:

'* * * that at any time after the commencement of proceedings in the district court, as provided for in this chapter, to condemn property, and upon ten days' notice to the adverse party, the district court or the judge thereof may appoint three disinterested persons, who shall be residents of the county in which the land is situated, as commissioners to assess and determine the damages that the defendant will sustain by reason of the condemnation and appropriation of the property described in the complaint, * * *'.

The commissioners so appointed having heard the evidence as to the damages sustained shall report in writing their proceedings. This was done in this case.

If the condemnor offers to pay the amount found due (by the commissioners), and in case of defendant's refusal to receive the same, deposits the money with the clerk of the district court to abide the result of the action, the plaintiff may by decree of the court then enter upon and take possession and use, property mentioned in the complaint. Sec. 7-717, I.C.

Unless the condemnor elects to pay the money and take possession of the ground, it is not bound by the findings of the commissioners. The fixing of the damages by the commissioners is a summary proceeding to allow the condemnor, at his option, and under prescribed procedure, to go into possession after the landowner has been fully safeguarded.

When the condemnor refuses to abide by the finding of the commissioners he does not secure possession of the land before the damages have been ultimately determined, and is entitled to have his remedy prosecuted in a district court proceeding before a jury as in a civil action.

After the commissioners have made an award, either party may refuse to be bound thereby and the remedy of a jury trial is common to both parties. Pyle v. Woods, 18 Idaho 674, 111 P. 746, 750, syl. 3 and 4; Sec. 7-717, I.C.

If the condemnor refuses to be bound by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Domingo v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 13 d5 Março d5 1964
    ...given by the court as a whole, (State ex rel. Rich v. Dunclick, Inc., 77 Idaho 45, 286 P.2d 1112; Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. Waller, 80 Idaho 105, 326 P.2d 388), the court fully and adequately instructed the jury on the applicable law and appellant's theory of the case; no error Ju......
  • Van v. Union Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 d2 Novembro d2 1961
    ...instructions given by the jury as a whole, (State ex rel. Rich v. Dunclick, Inc., 77 Idaho 45, 286 P.2d 1112; Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. Waller, 80 Idaho 105, 326 P.2d 388), the court fully and adequately instructed the jury on the appropriate law. The requested instructions either......
  • McBride v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 27 d4 Outubro d4 1983
    ...fairly and adequately present the issues and state the applicable law, then no error is committed. See Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. Waller, 80 Idaho 105, 326 P.2d 388 (1958); Union Seed Co. of Burley v. Savage, 76 Idaho 432, 283 P.2d 918 (1955); Koehler v. Stenerson, 74 Idaho 281, 26......
  • Suitts v. First Sec. Bank of Idaho, N.A.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 27 d5 Setembro d5 1985
    ...law, then no error is committed. See McBride v. Ford Motor Co., 105 Idaho 753, 673 P.2d 55 (1983); Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. Waller, 80 Idaho 105, 326 P.2d 388 (1958). The trial court's jury Instruction No. 13 provided as It is generally held that where the wrongful act of the def......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT