Republican Valley Railroad Co. v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 30 December 1882 |
| Parties | THE REPUBLICAN VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ERNEST ARNOLD, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Franklin county. Tried below before GASLIN, J.
AFFIRMED.
T. M Marquett and J. W. Deweese, for plaintiff in error, cited City of Parsons v. Lindsay, 26 Kan. 430. F. E. & M. V. R. R. v. Whalen, 11 Neb. 587. Alabama R. R. v Burkett, 42 Ala. 83. Harrison v. Iowa R. R., 36 Iowa 323. Farrard v. C. R. R., 21 Wis. 435. Evansville R. R. v. Fitzpatrick, 10 Ind. 120.
George W. Sheppard and W. J. Lamb, for defendants in error.
The defendant is the owner of the north half of the northeast quarter of sec. 3, town 1, range 15, in Franklin county. The plaintiff located its line of railroad across said land and applied for the appointment of commissioners to appraise the damages occasioned to said land by such location. The commissioners were appointed and appraised the damages at the sum of $ 77. The defendant then appealed to the district court, where a verdict was returned in his favor for the sum of $ 450, upon which judgment was rendered. At the time of the location of the road the land above described was nearly all in cultivation, and seems to have been part of a farm of about 160 acres. Testimony showing this fact was offered by the defendant and excluded, and as he is not here complaining, that question is not before the court.
The character of the road bed across this land is stated by the defendant in his testimony as follows:
On the east there is a 400 foot cut and 12 feet deep; then a fill 567 feet long and 22 1/2 feet high, sloping both ways; then a cut 472 feet long and 11 1/2 feet deep; then bridge; then fill 243 feet long, 14 1/2 feet high in highest place; then a cut 189 feet long and 5 feet deep at the deepest place; then a fill 162 feet long and 9 1/2 feet deep; then a cut 135 feet long and 4 feet deep; then a fill 162 feet long and 9 feet deep or high; then another cut 350 feet long and 5 feet high or deep."
This is not denied.
The first error relied upon is that the court permitted Arnold and his witnesses to testify to the amount of damages he had sustained, and in not confining them to a statement of facts and allow the jury to find the amount of damages from the facts thus detailed. A complete answer to this objection is found in the fact that no objection was made to this mode of proof.
We do not find an exception on that ground in the record. The objection therefore was waived. Aside from this the writer desires to say that a pretty full examination of the authorities since the case of the F. E. & M. V. R. R. v Whalen, 11 Neb. 585, was decided, has convinced him that the proper mode of assessing damages in such cases is by calling experts--men acquainted with the land and its value, and who are capable of estimating the injury sustained. It still devolves upon the jury to harmonize the testimony as far as possible, and in case of conflict to determine which witness or witnesses have correctly estimated the damages. Unless persons familiar with the value of the land and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial