Searl v. No In Lake Co Colorado
| Decision Date | 16 January 1888 |
| Docket Number | SCHOOL-DIST |
| Parties | SEARL v. NO. 2, IN LAKE CO., COLORADO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sam B. Rose, F. W. Owens, A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, and Walter H. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
On June 2, 1884, School-District No. 2, in the county of Lake and state of Colorado, filed a petition in the county court of that county against R. S. Searl, the owner of a certain lot of land in the city of Leadville, therein described, for the purpose of condemning the same to public use for school purposes, and praying that the amount to be paid as compensation therefor should be assessed according to the statute in such cases provided. On June 10, 1884, the defendant appeared, and, being a citizen of the state of Kansas, filed his petition and bond for the removal of said cause to the circuit court of the United States for that district, on the ground that the controversy therein was between citizens of different states. An order for the removal of the cause was thereupon made by the state court. On June 28, 1884, the plaintiff moved to remand the same, which motion was granted, and the cause was thereby remanded. To review this judgment the present writ of error is prosecuted.
By section 3035 of the General Statutes of the state of Colorado, the plaintiff is a body corporate, and authorized to hold property and be a party to suits and contracts 'the same as municipal corporations in this state.' The Code of Civil Procedure of that state provides for the appropriation of private property for public use, and authorizes a judicial proceeding in the district or county court for the purpose of ascertaining and awarding the amount of compensation to be paid therefor. It requires the filing of a petition setting forth the authority of the plaintiff to acquire the property in that mode, the purpose for which it is sought to be taken, a description of the property, and the names of all persons interested therein, who are to be made defendants and brought into court by the service of a summons or other process, as in other cases is provided by law. It provides, in the first instance, for the ascertainment of the amount of compensation or damages by a commission of three freeholders, but also that, before the appointment of such commissioners, any defendant may demand a jury of six freeholders residing in the county, to ascertain, determine, and appraise the damages or compensation to be allowed, and prescribes in such case the mode of trial, at which the court or judge shall preside in the same manner and with like power as in other cases; that evidence shall be admitted or rejected by the court or judge according to the rules of law; and at the conclusion of the evidence that the matters in controversy may be argued by counsel to the jury, and at the conclusion of the argument that the court or judge shall instruct the jury in writing in the same manner as in cases at law; that motions for a new trial, and to set aside the verdict, may be made and heard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Greenwood v. Humphrey & Co., Inc
... ... 34; ... Deepwater Ry. Co. v. Western Pocahontas Coal & Lbr ... Co., 152 F. 824; Searl v. School Dist., 124 ... U.S. 197, 31 L.Ed. 415, 8 S.Ct. 460; 7 Cyc. of Federal ... Procedure, ... 24; American Stores Co. v ... Gerlach, 55 F.2d 658; General Investment Co. v. Lake ... Shore M. & S. Ry., 260 U.S. 261, 67 L.Ed. 244, 43 S.Ct ... 106; Wilson v. Republic Iron & ... ...
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
... ... furthermore significant that in Boom Co. v ... Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 25 L.Ed. 206; Searl v ... School District, 124 U.S. 197, 8 Sup.Ct. 460, 31 L.Ed ... 415; Traction Co. v. Mining ... 176; ... [201 F. 945] ... Range R. Co. v. Copper Co. (C.C.) 25 F. 515; ... Colorado Midland Co. v. Jones (C.C.) 29 F. 193, and ... Deepwater Ry. Co. v. Coal & Lumber Co. (C.C.) ... ...
-
Markham v. City of Newport News
...96, 11 S.Ct. 468, 35 L.Ed. 88. 11 Boom Company v. Patterson, 1878, 8 Otto 403, 98 U.S. 403, 25 L.Ed. 206; Searl v. School District No. 2, 1888, 124 U.S. 197, 8 S.Ct. 460, 31 L.Ed. 415; Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining Company, 1905, 196 U.S. 239, 25 S.Ct. 251, 49 L.Ed. ......
-
County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Company
...courts even though the procedures available would not be the same as those provided by the state practice, Searl v. School District No. 2, 124 U.S. 197, 8 S.Ct. 460, 31 L.Ed. 415, and even though the case involved the power of the condemning authority to take the property, Pacific Railroad ......
-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1 Condemning Real Or Personal Property
...eminent domain under the law of a state. See Boom Co. v. Patterson, 1878, 98 U.S. 403, 25 L.Ed. 206; Searl v. School District No. 2, 1888, 8 S.Ct. 460, 124 U.S. 197, 31 L.Ed. 415; Madisonville Traction Co. v. Saint Bernard Mining Co., 1905, 25 S.Ct. 251, 196 U.S. 239, 49 L.Ed. 462. In the M......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 71.1 Condemning Real Or Personal Property
...eminent domain under the law of a state. See Boom Co. v. Patterson, 1878, 98 U.S. 403, 25 L.Ed. 206; Searl v. School District No. 2, 1888, 8 S.Ct. 460, 124 U.S. 197, 31 L.Ed. 415; Madisonville Traction Co. v. Saint Bernard Mining Co., 1905, 25 S.Ct. 251, 196 U.S. 239, 49 L.Ed. 462. In the M......