St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Stephenson
Decision Date | 10 November 1914 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 2967 |
Citation | 144 P. 387,43 Okla. 676,1914 OK 545 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. STEPHENSON. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 PUBLIC LANDS--Railroads--Construction of Embankment--Right to Recover Damages--Loss of Rental Value--Letters Patent. In an action for damages to land by reason of the construction of a railway embankment, where the pleadings and evidence show conclusively that the permanent character of the embankment and its continuance as originally constructed necessarily produced the injury to the freehold and caused the entire depreciation in the value thereof at the time of the construction, and that such injury had wholly occurred prior to the time when plaintiff acquired such land, held, that she took it in its then known condition, and the issuance of a patent conveying the land did not confer upon her a right of action for the recovery of damages for injuries thereto occurring prior to her acquisition of title. Held, further, that a loss of rental value does not constitute an injury for which damages may be recovered where, as in this case, there was permanent injury to the land itself.
W. F. Evans and R. A. Kleinschmidt, and E. H. Foster, for plaintiff in error.
W. T. Banks, for defendant in error.
¶1 This case presents error from the district court of Okfuskee county. On March 3, 1910, defendant in error, plaintiff below, commenced this action against plaintiff in error, as defendant. The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court. The amended petition of plaintiff is in three counts, and is set forth in full:
¶2 Defendant demurred generally to the first and second counts of the petition, and, as a special ground of demurrer to the first count, alleged that the cause of action therein set forth was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon demurrer being overruled and exceptions saved, defendant answered, averring that the railroad in question was constructed by the St. Louis, Oklahoma & Southern Railway Company under authority conferred upon it by an act of Congress of March 30, 1896, and was completed and put in operation in the year 1899, since which time said road has been maintained as a permanent structure, and that the plaintiff's cause of action, if any she has, accrued upon the completion of said road, and that this action was not brought within three years after the completion of the same or within three years after the injuries alleged to have occurred, and that her cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, as provided in sections 4478 and 4490, Mansf. Dig. of Ark., put in force in the Indian Territory by act of Congress of May 2, 1890 (chapter 182, 26 St. at L. 81), and continued in force up until November 16, 1907. Plaintiff replied denying that the cause of action accrued upon the completion of the roadbed, and alleging that the same accrued by the backing of surface water upon the land and within three years before the filing of the suit, and "that the damage to her land is a continuous injury, as set forth in her petition, and not subject to any statutory limitations." The evidence disclosed that after the construction of said railroad through the lands described in the petition said lands were allotted to plaintiff, as a member of the Creek Tribe of Indians, and that thereafter, on the 7th of January, 1904, a patent was issued conveying to her said lands, excepting therefrom the right of way of said road; that there had been no change in the condition of the embankment extending through said lands since its construction. The father and next friend of the plaintiff testified in this regard as follows:
¶3 And again he says:
"
¶4 Among the numerous assignments of error to be considered are: (1) Plaintiff cannot recover for injury to real estate caused by the obstruction of mere surface water not confined to a definite channel; (2) that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the action, she having acquired title to the land long after the embankment was constructed; and (3) error of the trial court in admitting evidence and instructing the jury as to the measure of damages. These assignments of error will be considered in the foregoing order. In C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 25 Okla. 760, 107 P. 662, 27 L.R.A. (N. S.) 879, it is said:
¶5 And again in the same opinion it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. Blue Tee Corp.
...the right to file suit for permanent damages terminates if the damaged land is conveyed to a purchaser. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Stephenson, 43 Okla. 676, 144 P. 387, 390-91 (1914). If the nuisance is temporary, damages are limited to those suffered up to the time of filing suit and subseq......
-
Payne v. Bevel
...only such damages as he has sustained up to the time of the institution of his action." ¶6 In the case of St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Stephenson, 43 Okla. 676, 144 P. 387, the court says:"While the rule is well established that there may be as many successive recoveries as there are succes......
-
Pahlka v. Chi., R. I. & P. R. Co.
...defendant in error cites Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Moseley, 161 F. 72, 88 C. C. A. 236, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 885; St. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. Stephenson, 43 Okla. 676, 144 P. 387. These cases do not support the theory of defendant in error. The Stephenson Case, supra, specifically held:"While ......
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Kelly
...plaintiff in damages." ¶4 In support of this contention the cases of Metcalf v. Glaze, 70 Okla. 137, 173 P. 446, St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Stephenson, 43 Okla. 676, 144 P. 387, and cases from other states, are cited. It is the theory of the plaintiff that the damages were occasioned by reas......