Town of Cherokee v. Sioux City & I. F. Town Lot & Land Co.
Decision Date | 27 October 1879 |
Citation | 3 N.W. 42,52 Iowa 279 |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Parties | TOWN OF CHEROKEE v. SIOUX CITY & I. F. TOWN LOT & LAND CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Supplemental opinion.
1. Upon filing the original opinion in this cause our attention was called to a supposed conflict between the fourth point thereof and the fourth point of the opinion in King v. The Iowa & Midland R. Co. 34 Iowa 458. (461.) While we were satisfied that the doctrines announced in the two cases did not conflict, it appeared that, on account of the brevity with which we had disposed of one of the points in the case--the fourth--our ruling thereon might be misunderstood; we therefore ordered on our own motion a rehearing of the case upon the question decided in the fourth point of our original opinion. Counsel for defendant thereupon filed a petition for rehearing upon all the questions raised in this case.
2. We will first remark that upon a careful re-examination of the case we remain satisfied with the conclusions announced in our original opinion, and with the manner in which we have presented them, except in the fourth point. We think the other points demand no further consideration. The petition asking for a rehearing upon those points is overruled.
3. The fourth point of our original opinion demands brief discussion in order to present the facts as disclosed by the record, and show its agreement with the prior decision above mentioned.
The testimony showed that the land which had been sold, and the piece testified to by the witness, were on the same “bottom,” and its character and value were compared to the land involved in this suit by the witnesses. The evidence showed that the lands were not similar in character and location, but the difference was pointed out. This testimony is briefly referred to in our original opinion. The value of the tract with which the land in question was compared being determined by its sale, and the difference in location and quality of the two tracts being shown, the jury would be aided thereby in reaching a conclusion as to the value of the land involved in this suit. In King v. The Iowa & Midland R. Co., supra, the tracts of land were not shown to be of like character, nor were the differences between them pointed out. In that case it was proposed to show the price at which a neighboring tract of land had been sold, without any evidence comparing its quality to the land in suit.
It is very plain that upon such testimony no opinion could...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Telluride Power Co. v. Bruneau
...... . In a. proceeding to condemn land, evidence of sales of property. similarly ... Paine v. Boston, 4 Allen (Mass.), 168; Cherokee. v. Land Co., 52 Ia. 279, 3 N.W. 42; Concord v. ...His land is about. five miles from Tooele City. There is evidence to show that. about 175 acres ......
-
Hubbell v. City of Des Moines
...... land to a line called the ordinary high water mark, which is. ... departure from the previous case of Town of Cherokee v. Town Lot Co. , 52 Iowa 279, 3 N.W. 42, but ......
-
Hubbell v. City of Des Moines
...changed its ruling because of that case. True, that was in some respects a departure from the previous case of Town of Cherokee v. Town Lot Co., 52 Iowa, 279, 3 N. W. 42, but that case was in itself somewhat of a departure from the prior rule of King v. Midland R. R., 34 Iowa, 458. It will ......
-
Evans v. Iowa S. Utilities Co. of Del.
...the witnesses introduced by appellee were properly qualified to testify as to the value of the land. Town of Cherokee v. S. C. & I. F. Town Lot & Land Co., 52 Iowa, 279, 3 N. W. 42;Winklemans v. Des Moines Northwestern Ry. Co., 62 Iowa, 11, 17 N. W. 82. They were farmers and landowners. The......