Quincy, Missouri & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Charlotte Ridge

• Decision Date: 31 October 1874
• Citation: 57 Mo. 599
• Parties: THE QUINCY, MISSOURI & PACIFIC R. R. CO., Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE RIDGE, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 599

THE QUINCY, MISSOURI & PACIFIC R. R. CO., Appellant,

v.CHARLOTTE RIDGE, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1874.

Appeal from Adair Circuit Court.

DeFrance & Halliburton, for Appellant.

H. F. Millan, for Respondent.

LEWIS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding under the general statutes to condemn a strip of ground through defendant's land for the track of the plaintiff's railway. Commissioners were appointed and made their report, assessing the damages at $50. Defendants filed their exceptions, which were sustained by the court, and the award being set aside, a jury was impaneled to make a new appraisement. This resulted in an assessment of $325, and judgment accordingly; from which, after unsuccessful motions for new trial and in arrest, the plaintiff appealed.

It is claimed for error, that the court, in considering defendants' exceptions to the report, improperly rejected plaintiff's offer “to prove by the commissioners that they were properly instructed; that they went upon the ground in person and viewed it, and that attorneys for the defendants were along and instructed them as to their duty in he premises.” We are not advised how this testimony, if admitted, could have influenced the action of the court. The evidence introduced is not preserved for our in pection, so that we have no means of knowing whether the fact of personal examination of the land by the commissioners was in issue. It was, in any event, immaterial how the commissioners were advised to act, by attorneys or others. The point of inquiry was, how did they act, and upon what principles did they, in fact, arrive at the conclusions reported by them? Nothing being here to show us in what manner that inquiry was conducted by the court, all the presumptions are in favor of its adjudication.

It is objected that the court had no authority, upon setting aside the report, to refer the matter to a jury. The act approved March 8th, 1873, (Sess. Acts, p. 24,) which was then in force, and made applicable to cases pending, expressly authorized that method of procedure.

At the instance of defendants the court instructed the jury thus: “In estimating the damages to the land in controversy, the jury will consider the quantity and value of the land taken by the railroad company for a right of way and the damages to the whole tract by reason of the road running through it; and deduct from these amounts the benefits, if any, peculiar to...