Toledo, S. & M.R. Co. v. Campau

• Citation: 83 Mich. 31,46 N.W. 1026
• Parties: TOLEDO, S. & M. R. Co. v. CAMPAU et al.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

46 N.W. 1026

83 Mich. 31

TOLEDO, S. & M. R. Co. v. CAMPAU et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 31, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Saginaw county; C. H. GAGE, Judge.

Petition of the Toledo, Saginaw & Mackinaw Railroad Company to acquire right of way through the lands of Daniel J. Campau and others. From the award the land-owners appeal.

Tarsney & Weadock, for appellants.

Hanchett, Stark & Hanchett, for appellee.

MORSE J.

The petition in this case was presented by the railroad company for the purpose of acquiring title to certain lands in the city of Saginaw. The respondents answered said petition, and jointly and severally denied that the petitioner had made a map and survey of said railroad through said parcels of land, and filed the same in the office of the register of deeds for Saginaw county; that the paper referred to in said petition as a map and survey of said "Wright Spur," so called, is indefinite and incomplete; that it is impossible for these respondents, or any of them, from an inspection thereof or from said petition, to determine the exact lands that said petitioner is seeking by these proceedings to acquire. They therefore deny the right of the petitioner to institute proceedings therein to acquire their or either of their interests in and to said several parcels of land, for the reasons hereinbefore stated. The respondents' counsel submitted the following special questions: First. Is the taking of the property described in the petition under consideration necessary to be taken by the petitioner for public use? Second. From the map and survey on file in the office of the register of deeds for the county of Saginaw, shown you, can you identify the property sought to be acquired by the petitioner without reference to other maps, or information furnished you? Third. From your view of the premises sought to be taken by the petitioner, could you, when upon the ground determine the location of the lot lines, or the particular property sought to be taken? Fourth. Is not the real purpose of the petitioner in obtaining the property under consideration for private instead of public use? Proofs were taken, and the jury viewed the premises as they return in their finding, and they found and determined that it was necessary to take said real estate for public use, stating the use, and awarded damages of $200 to each of the respondents. They did not answer the special questions so...