Packard v. Bergen Neck Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1892
• Parties: PACKARD v. BERGEN NECK RY. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

23 A. 722

54 N.J.L. 229

PACKARD

v. BERGEN NECK RY. CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 24, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to circuit court, Hudson county; before Justice Dixon.

Condemnation proceeding by the Bergen Neck Railway Company against Ralph C. Packard. From the judgment awarding his damages defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Argued February term, 1892, before the Chief Justice and DEPUE, Van Syckel, and Knapp, JJ.

Dickinson & Thompson and Collins & Corbin, for plaintiff in error.

Charles W. Fuller and Jos. D. Bedle, for defendant in error.

BEASLEY, C. J. After a careful examination of the proceedings at the trial of this cause, our conclusion is that the judgment should be affirmed. In arriving at this result, we have been encountered by a single difficulty. It seems to us that the rule by which the damage done to the lands of the plaintiff in error was to be appraised was not strictly correct. That rule was thus expounded: The jury, after being told that they were at liberty to blend in their estimate of the damages the value of the land taken and the damages done to the other part of the land of the plaintiff in error, were further instructed in these words, viz.: "And if you conclude to present one sum only, then the question may very properly be presented to your minds in this way: What was the fair market value of the property owned by Mr. Packard, and affected by this condemnation just as it stood on the 18th of March? and what would have been the fair market value of that same property, if on that day this railroad had been constructed across it upon an embankment not over six feet above high water? The difference between these two sums would represent the compensation to be awarded in this case." This test of the damages was plainly erroneous, because its tendency was to lead to a deduction by the jury from the damages which had been inflicted on these lands the benefits that had been conferred on them in common with all other lands in the vicinage by the location of the railroad. It has long been settled that such enhanced value is not to be discounted from the damages for which the landowner is to be compensated, and, undeniably, such increment in value must, of necessity, be represented in an estimation of the market value of the property as it existed after the laying of the railroad. But while we think this rule as to the ascertainment of these damages was incorrect, we are also satisfied that the plaintiff in error has sustained no loss by the inadvertence. The circumstances in this case, as exhibited at the trial, make it clear that this road could not have had any effect in the way of adding anything to the salable value of this property, and, consequently, the landowner would not have been benefited if the rule of damages had, in this connection, been formulated in the charge with the utmost nicety. Therefore, as the case stands,...