Railroad v. Boyer
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Parties | Railroad versus Boyer. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The proceeding must be at the instance and suggestion of the owner of the land; because such is the distinct requirement of the statute. But it was so in the case on hand; the widow Luther was the owner when the damages were occasioned, and they survived, by our statute, to her personal representative. The heirs or rather devisees of her deceased husband joined in a release or conveyance to her during her life of the locus in quo, for a good and sufficient consideration, and the executors of the testator joined in the release; in consideration whereof, she released to the estate of the testator, another piece or parcel of land, which was devised to her for life, of equivalent value. It was, in fact, a family compact and arrangement for the benefit of all interested. The part devised to the widow for life it was thought was more marketable than its equivalent, released and conveyed to the widow by the devisees and executors, and the widow was willing to take it in lieu of the other. Such arrangements being for the benefit of all, and to the injury of none, are favored by the law, as an adjustment of the family for their common benefit. It was a good and valid arrangement, and vested the ownership of the land in the widow during her life. The remainder-men had an interest also, and were owners of the premises, in the sense of the statute, so far as their interest was injured. The widow and those entitled in remainder for life might have joined in a proceeding, and then the whole damages to the entire fee could have been assessed. I will not say, because it is unnecessary and not involved in this case, whether the amount of compensation due to the life-tenant, and the amount due the remainder-men, ought in such case to be assessed separately, or whether the whole ought to be assessed together, leaving the division to the parties entitled according to their respective interests.
But although they may join, where there are several interests, either in common and in present existence, or some of them in future and expectancy, yet it follows not, that they must. Because, one might be baulked by the obstinacy of the others, or by their being bought off, or by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Depot Company v. Frederick
... ... been, such a proceeding was unconstitutional and therefore ... void. City v. Richfield, 45 N.W. 129; Railroad ... v. Sanford, 23 Mich. 418; Rusch v. Railroad, 54 ... Wis. 136; Brennan v. St. Paul, 47 N.W. 55. (3) The ... position of defendant in error ... Thompson v. Railroad, 110 Mo. 147; Railroad v ... Greve, 17 Minn. 322; Knauft v. Railroad, 22 ... Minn. 173, and Railroad v. Boyer, 13 Pa. St. 496 ... (2) The rule recognized almost everywhere is this: Where ... jurisdiction to act exists, then no error of decision nor any ... ...
-
Fifth Street
... ... claim independently or in connection with the lessor: ... Harrisburg v. Crangle, 3 W. & S. 460; Railroad ... v. Boyer, 13 Pa. 497 ... The ... estate of lessee for years, also, is an ownership sufficient ... to give a right to compensation: ... ...
-
Adams v. City of New Kensington
...On the question of the necessity for all tenants in common to appear as parties plaintiff, this Court said in Reading Railroad V. Boyer, 13 Pa. 497, 'But although they may join, where there are several interests, either in common and in present existence, or some of them in future and expec......
-
Seipel v. Railroad Co.
...Clement v. Commonwealth, 95 Pa. 107; Patton v. Railway Co., 96 Pa. 169; Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Hall, 25 Pa. 336; Railroad Co. v. Boyer, 13 Pa. 497. OPINION, MR. JUSTICE It is not necessary to inquire whether the act of April 17, 1866, P. L. 106, was broad enough to include this litigatio......