Seattle & M.R. Co. v. Corbett

• Decision Date: 20 February 1900
• Parties: SEATTLE & M. R. CO. v. CORBETT.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

60 P. 127

22 Wash. 189

SEATTLE & M. R. CO. v. CORBETT.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 20, 1900

Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; Frank T. Reid, Judge.

Action by the Seattle & Montana Railroad Company against Ellen T Corbett to condemn land. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Modified.

Burke, Shepard & McGilvra, for appellant.

O. P Mason and J. R. Cunnyingham, for respondent.

GORDON C.J.

In June, 1891, the Seattle & Montana Railway Company took possession and constructed its railroad over and across respondent's property in Snohomish county, the amount of the land so appropriated being 8.50 acres. In May, 1898, the appellant herein suceeded to the interest of the Seattle &amp Montana Railway Company, and in February, 1899, instituted this proceeding in the superior court of Snohomish county for the purpose of condemning the premises in question, which, as hereinbefore stated, had prior thereto been appropriated by its predecessor. The court, having found that the premises were requisite and necessary for the railroad enterprise, proceeded, without a jury, to the ascertainment of damages, and found that the value of the land taken was $170, and the value of the rails, ties, bolts, fish plates, etc., placed upon said land by the railway company was $2,500, and thereupon gave judgment against the company for the sum of $2,670. The railraod company appeals, and assigns as error the inclusion in the judgment of the value of the rails, ties, bolts, fish plates, etc.

A similar question was presented and passed upon by this court in Railroad Co. v. Strand, 14 Wash. 144, 44 P. 140 46 P. 238. In that case the railroad company had built two small buildings or cottages upon the premises, which it thereafter sought to condemn, and their value was separately found by the jury, and included in the judgment. We reversed the judgment for that reason. The question is not controlled by the rule of the common law, under which structures erected by tort feasors become part of the real estate. Unlike tort feasors, at common law the railroad possessed the power to condemn and acquire title, the condition upon which it might do so being that it should make just compensation; and it would be monstrously unjust to hold that it should be required to pay the value of the improvements which it had placed upon the land prior to its acquisition. The law upon the subject is well settled,...