Peck v. Superior Short Line Railway Company
| Decision Date | 26 January 1887 |
| Citation | 31 N.W. 217,36 Minn. 343 |
| Parties | Willys G. Peck and another v. Superior Short Line Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Condemnation proceedings. On the trial of the plaintiffs' (landowners') appeal from the award in the district court for St. Louis county, before Stearns, J., the jury found specially that the value of the "lots" mentioned in the opinion was $ 1,500, and returned a general verdict for plaintiffs, assessing their damages at $ 5,000. The defendant appeals from an order directing that judgment for $ 5,000 with interest, etc., be entered in favor of plaintiffs.
This disposes of the important matters in the case, the result being that the order appealed from is reversed.
John D Howe and Ensign, Cash & Williams, for appellant.
White Shannon & Reynolds, for respondents.
Respondents own a tract of land of several acres in area, at Duluth, part of which they occupy and use as the site of a steam saw-mill, and the remainder as piling ground for lumber there manufactured. They also own three contiguous town lots, separated from this tract by a street. These three lots the appellant railway company seeks to condemn, and, in the course of the trial in condemnation proceedings, the respondents claimed that the lots and the tract mentioned were one property or plant, and that, therefore, they were entitled to receive not only the value of the lots considered by themselves, but such additional damages as their taking would occasion to the entire plant or property as a whole. The question whether the unity of property contended for existed, having been left to a jury, was, in effect, answered in the affirmative by a general verdict in respondents' favor for $ 5,000, accompanied by a special finding that the value of the three lots by themselves was $ 1,500.
The substantial question presented here is whether there was evidence reasonably tending to show that the lots and the tract were so connected and related that they could properly, i. e., reasonably, be regarded as one property. Their separation by the public street does not necessarily prevent this. St. Paul & Sioux City R. Co. v. Murphy, 19 Minn. 433, (500;) Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 439, (29 N.W. 148;) Welch v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 27 Wis. 108; Chapman v. Oshkosh, etc., R. Co., 33 Wis. 629. They are contiguous in the sense of touching each other by embracing the soil of the street; but they are nevertheless prima facie distinct parcels of land. Hence the burden is upon the respondents, who claim their entirety, to produce the facts which make it out. Wilcox v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co., supra.
That the "tract" was an entirety, or part of one, at least, there is no question or dispute. It was all "mill property," properly so called; and why? Because it was adapted to, reasonably necessary for, and ordinarily and generally and permanently used in, the general business there carried on, viz., the manufacture of lumber, and, as a necessary incident thereof, its storage. Now, if these lots were a part of the same entirety as the "tract," it must be because they also are a part of the "mill property," properly so called. If they are a part of this entirety, -- "the mill property," -- it must be for the same general reason which makes the whole "tract" itself the whole or a part of the same. That is to say, they must be adapted to, reasonably necessary for, and ordinarily, generally, and permanently used in, the business there carried on, viz., the manufacture of lumber, and its storage.
We do not undertake the perilous task of formulating a specific and exact rule to govern all instances...
To continue reading
Request your trial