Sargent v. Inhabitants of Machias
| Decision Date | 14 March 1876 |
| Citation | 65 Me. 591 |
| Parties | IGNATIUS SARGENT, executor, v. INHABITANTS OF MACHIAS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
November 1875.
ON EXCEPTIONS.
PETITION to the county commissioners for increase of damages to real estate by reason of raising a street.
An original petition was made to the selectmen, who awarded $50 damages. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, petitioned for an increase of damages. The parties met the commissioners for a hearing June 23, 1874, and agreed " to refer the whole matter, as set forth in the petition, to the county commissioners as the committee prescribed by the statute for the determination of such questions," who, after hearing had, awarded $250 damages and costs. To the acceptance of their report the defendants filed a written objection, that after the injury to the real estate and previous to the filing of the report in court, the petitioner had conveyed all his interest in the premises. The court overruled the objection and accepted the report. The defendants excepted.
G Walker, for the defendants, in arguing his exceptions relied also upon the want of title in the petitioner at the time of the injury as an objection to the report.
L. G. Downes, for the plaintiff.
The original petition in this case is founded upon R. S., c. 18, § 53, chapter 46 of the acts of 1872, which provides for the recovery of damages for an injury to the owner of adjoining land by the raising or lowering of a street or way. After an adjudication by the municipal officers, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by their judgment, petitions to the county commissioners for an increase of damages, whereupon " the parties agree to refer the whole matter, as set forth in the petition, to the county commissioners as the committee prescribed by the statute for the determination of such questions." That tribunal, after a hearing, made their report to this court. The respondents made in writing an objection to the acceptance of that report which objection was overruled and exceptions filed. The objection is that after the injury to the real estate and previous to the filing of the report in court, the petitioner had conveyed all his interest in the premises to one Ruby L. Stuart.
This objection clearly can have no foundation in law. The statute giving this claim to damages, gives it to the owner. This must necessarily be understood to mean the owner at the time of the injury. No other person is or can be injured. It is from that time the claim dates, and the statute of limitations begins to run. From that time the claim for damages and the land left, are two separate and distinct things; a sale or conveyance of one would in no respect control or affect the other. In case of the decease of the owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Seward
...794, 106 Cal. 355; Larimer County Ditch Co. v. Zimmerman, 34 P. 1111, 4 Col. App. 78; Johnson v. Crookshanks, 28 P. 78; Sargent v. Inhabitants of Machias, 65 Me. 591; James v. Blanton, 121 S.W. 951; Bush v. etc., 36 So. 900. It is interesting to note that in the language used by the court i......
-
Rines v. City of Portland
...for. And it follows that, as subsequent purchasers of the land, they were in no sense "aggrieved" by the estimate of damages. Sargent v. Machias, 65 Me. 591. Nor do the appellants stand in any better position as purchasers and assignees of the "damages allowed or recovered," as it is expres......
-
Blondeau v. Sheridan
...St. 392; Cole v. Hughes, 54 N. Y. 444; Todd v. Stokes,10 Pa. St. 155; Gilbert v. Drew,9 Pa. St. 219; McGadden v. Johnson,72 Pa. St. 335; 65 Me. 591. HENRY, J. On January 18th, 1881, plaintiffs filed in the probate court of Buchanan county their demand for $433.36, against said estate, and, ......
-
Turner v. Whitehouse
... ... The sale of the land does not carry with ... it prior accruing damages. Sargent v. Machias, 65 ... This ... question is so satisfactorily discussed and settled in ... ...