St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Stewart
Decision Date | 05 March 1907 |
Citation | 100 S.W. 583,201 Mo. 491 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. STEWART. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barton County; H. C. Timmonds, Judge.
Condemnation proceedings by the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company against William M. Stewart. From an order overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial, it appeals. Affirmed.
E. O. Brown and Thomas & Hackney, for appellant. Thos. Dolan and John Dolan, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant upon a verdict assessing his damages at the sum of $500 in a condemnation proceeding instituted by plaintiff in the circuit court of Jasper county for the purpose of condemning a right of way through defendant's farm upon which to construct a railroad. The said farm contained 160 acres. Commissioners to assess the damages were duly appointed and qualified, and, upon the 16th day of April, 1903, made their report, in which they assessed defendant's damages at $300. Thereafter the plaintiff deposited said sum with the clerk, and afterwards, on the 25th day of April, 1903, the defendant filed his exceptions to the report of the commissioners, and prayed that the same be set aside, and that the damages be assessed by a jury. Thereafter, on the 2d of June, 1903, on application of the defendant, the venue of said cause was changed to the circuit court of Barton county, and on the 17th day of September, 1903, trial was had before the court and jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of defendant for the sum of $500. In due time plaintiff filed its motion for a new trial, which was upon the same day overruled. Plaintiff appeals.
The first assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to permit plaintiff to prove special benefits to defendant's farm arising from the construction of the railroad and the location of a station on an adjoining 40-acre tract of land. The evidence shows that the depot in question was located a quarter of a mile distant from defendant's land, and there was no evidence showing that it could be reached by any road from defendant's farm or that defendant derived any direct or peculiar benefits therefrom that were not shared by the rest of the neighborhood. The record shows that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Electric Park Amusement Co.
...92; Bowring v. Wabash, 90 Mo.App. 324; McKinstery v. Transit Co., 82 S.W. 1108; Shanahan v. Transit Co., 109 Mo.App. 228; Railroad v. Stewart, 201 Mo. 491; Scippell v. Gaslight Co., 125 Mo.App. 81; Bell v. Railroad, 125 Mo.App. 660; Gibler v. Railroad Co., 203 Mo. 208. (10) Where the charge......
- Smith v. Smith
-
Gandy v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... (2) Instruction 2 was a correct declaration of ... law under the facts of this case. The instructions should be ... considered together and if when so considered they properly ... declare the law, no ground for complaint exists ... Harrington v. Sedalia, 98 Mo. 583; Railroad v ... Stewart, 201 Mo. 491. (a) Only one ground of negligence ... was submitted by Instruction 2, that is failure to warn ... Young v. Lusk, 268 Mo. 625, 638; Hock v ... Railroad, 315 Mo. 1208; State ex rel. Kroger Gro. & Bak. Co. v. Haid, 18 S.W.2d 480. (b) A rule of the ... master or a custom developed ... ...
- Smith v. Smith