Reed v. Louisville Bridge Co.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1871 |
| Citation | 71 Ky. 69 |
| Parties | Reed, & c. v. Louisville Bridge Company. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
J. F BULLITT, For Appellants,
Act of 1856, incorporating Louisville Bridge Co., Sess. Acts, 427.
Revised Statutes, article 8, chapter 27.
Myers's Supplement, Act of 1865, page 561.
Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, 493-503.
Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 528, 538.
3 Blackstone's Commentaries, 272-5.
6 Jacobs's Law Dictionary, 458.
5 Rich L. R. 598, McLaughlin v. Railroad Company.
4 McCord's L. R. 541, Patrick v. Commissioners.
17 B Monroe, 177, Henderson & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Dickerson.
4 Railway Cases, 235, Gray v. Liverpool & Railway Company.
1 Myl. & K. 162, Blakemore v. The G. Canal Company
4 Railway Cases, 513, Coleman v. The Eastern County Railway Co.
11 Peters, 420, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge.
| 8 Peters, 738. | 3 Metcalfe, 197. |
1 Redfield on Railways, 234-5.
9 Rich. L. R. 228, Railroad Company v. Blake.
BULLOCK & ANDERSON, For Appellee,
CITED
Smith on Constitutional and Statutory Law, 446.
Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium, --.
Tomlin's Law Dictionary, 44.
Constitution of Kentucky, section 15, article 4.
Revised Statutes, section 1, article 8, chapter 27, 1 Stanton, 310.
1 Baldwin's Ch'y Court Rep. 221, Bonaparte v. Amboy R. R. Co.
7 Greenleaf, 273, Cooper v. Williams.
1 Dana, 232, O'Hara v. Lexington Railroad Company.
7 Massachusetts, 395, Perry v. Wilson.
3 Yerger, 4, Hardin v. Goodlet.
1 Duvall, 372, Arnold v. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co.
3 Paige, 73, Beekman v. Saratoga & Sch. Railroad Company.
23 Pickering, 360, Boston Water Pr. Co. v. Boston & Wor. R. R. Co.
11 New Hampshire, 19, Backus v. Lebanon.
1 Coke on Littleton, page 362, note 6.
4 Howard, 240, Thompson v. The Grand Gulf R. & B. Co.
By the second section of " an act to incorporate the Louisville Bridge Company" (2 Session Acts, 1855-1856, p. 426) it is provided " that said company be and they are hereby invested" with the right " to purchase or condemn by writ of ad quod damnum and hold as much real estate as may be necessary for the site of said bridge, or the sites for the piers, abutments, toll-houses, and suitable avenues leading to the same, and such other lands as may be necessary."
Pursuant to this delegated authority the company filed a petition in the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas against the appellants and others, alleging that they were jointly seized in fee of certain lots of land situate in the city of Louisville, giving the specific boundaries thereof, and representing that all of said lands were necessary to the company for the " erection of toll-houses, depots, and the opening of avenues to said bridge, and the advantage and convenience of the public."
The parties having been properly brought before the court, a guardian ad litem was appointed for those appellants who were infants. By the answer of said guardian all the material allegations of the petition were controverted. The adult defendants consented in open court that the prayer of the petition should be granted; and afterward, upon motion of the appellee, and without a trial of the issues made up by the pleadings, an order was made awarding a writ of ad quod damnum, directing the sheriff to " summon and empanel a jury of twelve impartial freeholders and housekeepers to meet on the land in the petition mentioned, . . and find the value of said land," and make due return of said writ.
In pursuance of this order a writ was sued out, a jury empaneled, and an inquest returned. By their verdict the jury assessed the value of the land at the sum of $27,984, and adjudged that the same was necessary and requisite for the purposes of the company.
Upon the return of the inquest a judgment was rendered apportioning the assessed value of the property taken among the joint owners, and adjudging that upon the payment of said amount by the company it should become vested with the title and ownership of the lands condemned.
The statutory guardian for these appellants accepted and receipted to the company for the amounts to which her wards were entitled under said judgment; but their guardian ad litem, in their names and on their behalf, has prosecuted an appeal to this court, and asks a reversal of the action of the court below upon three separate and distinct grounds, viz.:
1. That the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas had no jurisdiction of the proceeding.
2. That the charter does not authorize the bridge company to condemn lands for depot purposes.
3. That there is no proof in the record showing that the lands taken were necessary for the legitimate purposes and business of said company.
Without elaborating our reasons therefor we are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staggenborg v. Bailey
... ... of majority. See 15 A. & E. Enc. of Law, 15; Reed, etc., ... v. Louisville Bridge Co., 71 Ky. 69; Hussey v ... Sargent, etc., 75 S.W. 211, 25 Ky ... ...
-
American Mach. Co. v. Page, Gdn.
...by the court or the guardianship is terminated by the infant's reaching his majority. (15 Am. & Eng. Enc. 15; Reed, et al vs. Louisville Bridge Co., 71 Ky. 69; Hussey vs. Sargent, &c., 116 Ky., It was also held in that case and in the cases of Robinson v. Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co., ......