Toledo, A.A. & N.M.R. Co. v. Munson

• Decision Date: 13 May 1885
• Citation: 57 Mich. 42,23 N.W. 455
• Parties: TOLEDO, A.A. & N.R. CO. v. MUNSON.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

23 N.W. 455

57 Mich. 42

TOLEDO, A.A. & N.R. CO. v. MUNSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 13, 1885

Appeal from Shiawassee.

G.R. Lyon, for petitioner.

Griswold & Densmore and James M. Goodell, for respondents and appellants.

CHAMPLIN J.

This is an appeal from the probate court of Shiawassee county, in proceedings taken by plaintiff to condemn the lands of defendants for the use of its railroad. In proceedings based upon the right of eminent domain it is well settled that every material requirement of the statute must be strictly followed, and the proceedings must show affirmatively substantial adherence to the course therein prescribed. An appeal from the confirmation of the report of an assessment of damages by jury, brings up the case as it stood before the court confirmed the report, (Peninsular Ry. Co. v. Howard, 20 Mich. 18;) and while under the present statute the notice of appeal must point out the errors and objections to the proceedings had in the premises all others being deemed to have been waived, and while the statute requires the supreme court to pass upon those only yet jurisdictional defects may be noticed at any stage of the proceedings, for the reason that if the court proceeds without jurisdiction, the whole proceedings are null and void; and it would be of no avail to send the matter back for further proceedings before the court, or another jury. It is therefore proper here to point out that the petition filed as the foundation of these proceedings, as decided by this court in the case of Chicago & M.L.S.R. Co. v. Sanford, 23 Mich. 418, was insufficient to confer jurisdiction, because it did not comply with the requirement of the statutes prescribing what such petition should contain. The law requires that each distinct parcel of land shall be described, and the owner thereof, if known, shall be named.

In the case referred to above, the petition, instead of describing the several parcels of lands, described the government subdivisons across which the line of the road was laid, as surveyed and located by the railroad company, reference being had to the map and survey thereof on file in the county register's office. It also stated with precision the starting point, which this petition does not do, and thence gave the survey by course and distance to the point of departure from the lands, and located such point. The following is the description contained in the petition before us in this case: "A strip or parcel of land one hundred feet in width, commencing on the east line of the west half of the south-east quarter...