Williams v. New York, P. & N.R. Co.
Citation | 137 A. 506,153 Md. 102 |
Decision Date | 08 April 1927 |
Docket Number | 52. |
Parties | WILLIAMS ET AL. v. NEW YORK, P. & N. R. CO. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wicomico County; Joseph L. Bailey, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Condemnation proceeding by the New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad Company against Elmer C. Williams and another, in which Harry A. Wilson was made a party defendant. Judgment assessing damages, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and new trial awarded.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
F Leonard Wailes, of Salisbury, and William L. Rawls, of Baltimore (Benjamin A. Johnson, of Salisbury, on the brief) for appellants.
George H. Myers, of Princess Anne (Miles & Myers, of Princess Anne on the brief), for appellee.
Elmer C. Williams and Edith L. Williams, two of the appellants, were owners of a tract of land located in or immediately adjoining the city of Salisbury, Wicomico county, Md., which they had platted and were holding for sale in lots. Appellee desiring to purchase 3.809 acres of the land "for the purpose of additional side tracks, delivery sidings, freight station, and additional facilities for receiving and delivering freight in said town of Salisbury, " and, being unable to reach an agreement as to price with the owners, instituted condemnation proceedings. In the early stage of the pleadings, in the answer filed by Elmer C. Williams, it was alleged that "a part of said land has heretofore been sold, * * * the purchaser of said land being Harry A. Wilson," and on a supplemental petition he was made a party defendant by order of court, and in the course of the trial the following agreement of counsel was filed:
The case was tried by the court and a jury in the circuit court for Wicomico county. The finding of the jury is shown by the statement of the trial judge contained in the twentieth bill of exception:
The action of the court in reassembling the jury and permitting them to correct their verdict in the circumstances above set out was, in our opinion, reversible error. This conclusion is unavoidable if we are to adhere to the rule announced by this court in Gaither v. Wilmer, 71 Md. 361, 18 A. 590, 5 L. R. A. 756, 17 Am. St. Rep. 542, in an opinion filed by Judge Miller, in which earlier decisions of this court are reviewed. That case remains unaffected by any subsequent decision, and we have no inclination to modify it. Its reasoning is, in our opinion, unanswerable. Harris v. Hipsley, 122 Md. 418, 89 A. 852, cited by appellees is not in conflict, but expressly recognizes the principle announced in the earlier case.
There is a suggestion by appellees that the verdict as originally rendered by the jury does not appear by the docket entries to have been recorded; but the trial judge distinctly states in the bill of exception that it was, which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BERN-SHAW LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. BALTIMOREMAYOR AND CITY …
...sales." Id. (citing Patterson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 127 Md. 233, 241, 96 A. 458 (1915); Williams v. New York, P. & N. R. Company, 153 Md. 102, 108, 137 A. 506 (1927)). The Lustine Court reasoned that real estate parcels have a degree of uniqueness which make comparability,......
-
Davis v. Board of Educ. of Anne Arundel County
...... his proper proportion of the costs." Williams v. N. Y., P. & N. R. Co., 153 Md. 102, 137 A. 506. In this. case there was no formal verdict for ......