Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Procedure-Continued.

compliance by the railroad com-
pany. Fort St. U. D. R. Co. v.
Jones (Mich.), 70 n.
Agreement of parties. Sufficiency
of petition in condemnation pro-
ceedings as to inability of par-
ties to agree, 69 n.

Where petition avers that
efforts were made to agree, but
defendant tenders no issue on
that point, company cannot ob-
ject that court did not acquire
jurisdiction. Chicago, M. & St.
P. R. Co. v. Randolph T. S.
Co. (Mo.), 118.

Commissioners; qualification of,
to assess damages. Action of
two commissioners out of three.
Ohio M. & R. Co. v. Barker
(Ill.), 257 n.

Costs. Effect of offer of company

to confess judgment for part of
amount claimed. Chicago, I.
& K. R. Co. v. Townsdin (Kan.),
270 n.

Proceedings to condemn
land held not to constitute an
"action." Wisconsin C. R. Co.
v. Kneale (Wis.), 270 n.
Description of land in report of
commissioners held sufficient to
identify it. Chicago, M. & St.
P. R. Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co.
(Mo.), 118.

Dismissal of proceedings to con-
demn land. Right of defend-
ant to writ of restitution. Dur-
ham & N. R. Co. v. North Car-
olina R. Co. (N. Car.), 269 n.
Instruction to commissioners.

Failure of court to instruct com-
missioners when not requested
is not ground for setting aside
award. Chicago, M. &. St. P.
R. Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co.
(Mo.), 118.
Jury trial; either party may have,

but without demand it will be
waived. Chicago, M. & St. P.
R. Co. v. Randolph T. S. Co.
(Mo.), 118.

Jury of twelve men de-
manded by constitution. Stat-
ute authorizing appeal from de-
cision of jury of six directly to
supreme court, invalid. Postal
T. C. Co. v. Alabama G. S. R.
Co. (Ala.), 252.

when constitutional right is
47 A. & F. R. Cas.-45

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Procedure-Continued.
infringed, 256 n.

Jury trial. What constitutes legal
jury in condemnation proceed-
ings. Colorado C. R. Co. v.
Humphreys (Colo.), 256 n.

Qualifications of juror in con-
demnation proceedings. Juror
who has acted in former panel.
Hester v. Chambers (Mich.),
256 n.

under Mo. Const, a landown-
er is entitled to, on assessment
of damages. St. Joseph & I. R.
Co. v. Cudmore (Mo.), 249.
Mandamus to compel deposit of
award, 262 n.

to compel company to deposit
amount of award, held to lie.
State v. Grand I. & W. C. R.
Co. (Neb.), 257.

Maps and profiles; filing of, in con-
demnation proceedings, 36 n.
-Filing map and profile held
not a condition precedent to ap-
pointment of commissioners ;
but court may in its discretion
require them. Wheeling B. &
T. R. Co. v. Camden C. O. Co.
(W. Va.), 27.

Indication of land required
on map or plan. Application
to deviation from original line.
Kingston & P. R. Co. v. Mur-
phy (Can.), 269 n.

Sufficiency of map and sur-
vey for identification of proper-
ty sought to be taken. Toledo
S. & M. R. Co. v. Campau
(Mich.), 270 n.

Misconduct of commissioners. Ex
parte communications with ju-
rors and commissioners, 176 n.

Going over land and discuss-
ing case with one party in ab-
sence of other held not to war-
rant setting aside report, there
having been two subsequent
jury trials. Louisville, St.
L. & T. R. Co. v. Barrett (Ky.),
169.

Improprieties general-
ly, 174 n.

Receiving entertainment
from one of the parties, 175 n.
- of viewers, jurors, etc., in con-
demnation proceedings, 174 n.
Nonsuit; when company will not
be able to take. Nevada & M.
R. Co. v. De Lissa (Mo.), 269 n.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Procedure-Continued.
Notice of proceedings, 211 n.

to be given by commissioners
is indispensable and cannot be
disregarded. Jacksonville, T.
& K. W. R. Co. v. Adams (Fla.),
206.

to defendant; finding of
court as to, cannot be impeached
collaterally. Cincinnati, S. &
C. R. Co. v. Belle Centre
(Ohio), 72.

Oaths of commissioners, jurors,
and viewers to condemn land
and assess damages, 46 n.

Necessity for oath, 46 n.
Oath to jury in proceedings
to condemn land held sufficient
compliance with statute.

Fort

St. U. D. Co. v. Morton (Mich),

41.

The sufficiency of the oath,
47 n.

Waiver of failure to take oath
or defective oath, 50 n.

What records and reports
should show as to the adminis-
tration of oaths, 49 n.
Open and close; held error to
have allowed landowner the
right. Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v.
Ross (Tex.), 270 n.; Fort Worth
& R. G. R.Co. v. Culver (Tex.),
270 n.

Removal to federal court of pro-
ceedings in state court to con-
demn right of way. Kansas C.
& T. R. Co. v. Interstate L. Co.
(C. C.), 25 n.

Court

Service on defendants.
has power to decide when ser-
vice is complete and parties are
in court, and its decision on
these questions cannot be col-
laterally inquired into. Cincin-
nati S. & C. R. Co. v. Belle
Centre (Ohio), 72.
Verdict of jury awarding dam-
ages. Sufficiency of. Failure to
show findings as to benefits.
Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Stark
(Colo.), 257 n.
Title in company. Railroad com-
pany in condemnation proceed-
ings cannot set up title in itself.
Colorado M. R. Co. v. Bowles
(Colo.), 268 n.

Unlawful Entry.

See INJUNCTIONS, infra.

Action of trespass against a rail-

EMINENT DOMAIN.
Unlawful Entry-Continued.

road for entering on land with-
out having it set apart, or noti-
fying the owner of an intention
to take it. Bellingham Bay
R. & Nav. Co. v. Loose (Wash.),
248 n.

Action to recover possession of
land taken without compensa-
tion. Shoemaker v. Cedar Rap-
ids, I. F. & N. W. R. Co. (Minn.),
248 n.
Acquiesence by landowner in un.
lawful entry; effect of. Mitch-
ell v. New Orleans & N. E. R.
Co. (La.), 248 n.
Injunction.

Compensation; attempt to take
land without making, will be
enjoined. Payne . Kansas &
A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.
Contract between railroad com-
pany and landowner for right of
way. Institution of condemna-
tion proceedings by landowner.
Temporary injunction. Harvey
v. Kansas N. & D. R. Co.
(Kan.), 247 n.

Federal court. Jurisdiction to
enjoin entry pending suit in
state court. Dillon 7. Kansas
City S. B. R. Co. (C. C.), 247 #.
Injunction to restrain occupation
of land pending proceedings by
certiorari to review condemna-
tion. Traverse City, K. & G. R.
Co. v. Seymour (Mich.), 247 n.
Appeals.

Bonds for damages; appeal from
order approving, held not to lie.
Twelfth St. M. Co. v. Philadel
phia & R. T. R. Co. (Pa.), 268 n.
Condemnation of reservation in
conveyance of land. Appeal of
Cockroft (Conn.), 268 #.
Entry on lands cannot be made
until owner has reasonable time
to appeal. Waite v. Port R. R.
Co. (N. J.), 263.

Jurisdictional amount. Difference
of award of first and second
board of commissioners. At-
lantic & D. R. Co. v. Reid (Va.),
268 n.

Jurisdictional amount. Supreme
court cannot review judgment
for less than for $500. Rich-
mond, F. & P. R. Co. v. Knopff
(Va.), 268 n.

Jurisdiction of New York Court

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Appeals-Continued.

of Appeals in condemnation
proceedings. In re Metropoli-
tan E. R. Co. (N. Y.), 268 n.
Jury trial; right to, cannot be
taken away by appeal from pro-
bate court with jury of six men
directly to supreme court. Pos-
tal T. C. Co. v. Alabama G. S.
R. Co. (Ala.), 252.

Mining claim; condemnation of
surface over. Evidence. Rights
of owners to surface. Colorado

M. R.Co. v. Bowles (Colo.), 268 n.
Reasonable time for taking ap-
peal depends on circumstance.
Sixteen days held not unreason-
able. Waite . Port R. R. Co.
(N. J.), 263.

Time for taking appeal, 267 n.
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES.
CONTRACT.

See

EQUITY. See INJUNCTION.
Accounting. Suit to enforce con-
tract to make up deficiency in
amount of net earnings. Juris-
diction of equity on ground of
accounting. Bradford E. & C.
R. Co. v. New York, L. E. & W.
R. Co. (N. Y.), 374.
Jurisdiction of U. S. Courts. See
U. S. COURTS.

Mistake. Equity will relieve rail-
road company from conse-
quences of mistake whereby
they omit to make mortgagee a
party to condemnation proceed-
ings. Calumet R. R. Co. v.
Brown (Ill.), 199.

ESTOPPEL.

[blocks in formation]

EVIDENCE—Continued.

scription. Stanton v. New
York & E. R. Co. (Conn.), 390.
Expert and opinion evidence in
condemnation proceedings. See
EMINENT DOMAIN, Evidence.

-Expert testimony that "spring
rail," breaking of which caused
an accident, appeared to be
sound, not necessary. Craw-
ford v. Georgia P. R. Co. (Ga.),
520 n.

Medical expert. Question
"you have had many cases of
obstetrics, have you?" disal-
lowed as leading. Alabama G.
S. R. Co. v. Hill (Ala.), 501.

Opinion evidence inadmissi-
ble on question whether station
platform is dangerous to pas-
sengers. Graham v. Pennsyl-
vania Co. (Pa.), 522.

Opinion evidence as to dan-
gerous character of places,
structures or appliances, 528 n.
Operation of road. Presumption
is, that company running the
road is the party operating it.
Peabody v. Oregon R. & N. Co.
(Or.), 599.

Parol claim by contractors to as-
sume debts of company. Evi-
dence to establish contract.
Lookout Mountain R. Co. v..
Houston (C. C.), 373 n.

Parol evidence held inadmissible
to vary terms of contract between
plaintiff and promoters of cor-
poration, subsequently ratified.
Stanton v. New York & E. R.
Co. (Conn.), 390.

Loss of earnings; evidence
as to, when such loss has not
been specially pleaded. In-
structions to jury. Mellor v.
Missouri P. R. Co. (Mo.), 450.

his own

Plaintiff calling physician to
testify does not thereby waive
right to object to
physicians testifying on same
subject. Mellor v. Missouri P.
R. Co. (Mo.), 450.

Previous health, and manner
and effect of injuries may be
shown. Alabama G. S. R. Co.
v. Hill (Ala.), 500.

Surgical examination; courts
have no power to order injured
Union P.
person to submit to.
R. Co. v. Botsford (U. S.), 406.
Surgical examination of

EVIDENCE-Continued.

plaintiff's person.
Selection of
experts is within discretion of
court. Refusal to appoint par-,
ticular person, not erroneous.
Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill
(Ala.), 500.
Parol evidence.

Surgical exami-
nation of plaintiff's person in
actions for, 414 m.
Presumption of negligence or

care. See CONTRIBUTORY NEG-
LIGENCE; PASSENGERS,
Rule forbidding trains to pass be-
tween station and another train
discharging passengers; evi-
dence as to, in actions for in-
jury to passenger run over at
station. Lake Shore & M.

S. R. Co. v. Ward (Ill.), 533 n.
Similar accidents at other sta-
tions; evidence as to, in ac-
tions for injuries received on
station platform. Brady v.
Manhattan R. Co. (N. Y.), 528 n.
EXCURSION TRAINS. See TICKETS

[blocks in formation]

FRANCHISE—Continued.

Wheeling B. & T. R. Co. v.
Camden C. O. Co. (W. Va.), 27.

FRAUD.

Avoiding obligation; fraud fur-
nishes ground for, but such ob-
ligation cannot be assailed in
order to old property which it
transferred. Barr . New York,
L. E. & W. R. Co. (N. Y.), 329.
Conditional sale of stock. Cancel-

lation of agreement. See STOCK
AND STOCKHOLDERS.
Finding. How fraud must be
found. Statement of badges or
evidence of fraud insufficient.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. N. & St.
L. R. Co. (Ind.), 271.
Lease of railroad. Corrupt scheme
of directors. See LEASE.
INCORPORATION.
Authority to build short connect-
ing railroad under act authoriz-
ing formation of railroad com-
panies. National Docks & N.
J. J. C. R. Co. v. State (N. J.),
87.
INDEPENDENT

CONTRACTOR.

See CONTRACTORS.

INDIAN LANDS.

Cherokee nation; title to lands
which it holds. Rights of indi-
vidual citizens. Pavne v. Kan-
sas & A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.
Eminent domain. Cherokee cit-
izen held entitled to pay for
additional servitude imposed on
land. Payne v. Kansas & A.
V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.
INDICTMENT. See SUNDAY.
INJUNCTION.

Electric street railway. See
STREET RAILWAYS.
Eminent domain. Enjoining en-
try on land. See EMINENT Do-
MAIN, Injunction.
Federal practice.

Courts gov-
erned by laws of congress and
general equity practice. Payne
v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. (C.
C.), 228.
Irreparable

damages defined ;
when party has adequate rem-
edy at law under U. S. statute,
Payne v. Kansas & A. V. R.
Co. (C. C.), 228.
Sidetrack on company's own land.
Temporary injunction, modified
so as to allow construction of.
Savannah, A. & M. R. Co. v.
Fort (Ga.), 321 n.

[blocks in formation]

en-

tion of court. Payne v. Kansas
& A. V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.
Trespass. If remedy at law is
not claimed as adequate, con-
tinuing trespass may be
joined. Payne v. Kansas & A.
V. R. Co. (C. C.), 228.
INSTRUCTIONS.
Court is under no obligation to
single out testimony of wit-
nesses, and instruct on its ef-
fect if it is believed. Alabama
G. S. R. Co. v. Hill (Ala.), 502.
Doubt or uncertainty as to facts.
Instruction to find against
plaintiff properly refused. Ala-
Ebama G. S. R. Co. v. Hill (Ala.),

[blocks in formation]

LATERAL RAILROADS.
BRANCH ROADS.

LEASE.

.

See

Action against lessor and lessee of
railroad. Removal of cause by
one defendant. Spangler v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C.
C.), 372 n.

Competing lines, acquisition by
railroad company of. Construc-
tion of Mo. statute. Kimball v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C.
C.), 369 n.

operation and control of, by
another competing line made il-
legal by statute. Manchester &
L. R. Co. v. Concord R. Co. (N.
H.), 359.

validity of contracts between,
368 n.

contracts between, prevent-
ing competition; when void as
against public policy. Man-
chester & L. R. Co. v. Concord
R. Co. (N. H.), 359.

Contract for use of tracks, depots,
etc. Assignment of lessee held
to carry with it all its rights
under the contract. Chicago, R.
I. & P. R. Co. v. Denver & R.
G. R. Co. (C. C.), 358 n.
Controlled line; lease of, for rent
to be paid controlling company,
held not void for want of con-
sideration. Chicago, R. I. & P.
R. Co. v. United Pac. R. Co.
(Neb.), 340.

Fraud.

Lease by railroad com-
pany of another road con-
structed by syndicate of di-
rectors at extravagant rental.
Corrupt scheme held to make
obligation of lease voidable.
Barr v. New York, L. E. & W.
R. Co. (N. Y.), 329.

Lease by one road of another
having directors in common,
339 n.
Lessor held not liable for damage
caused by water from em-
bankment erected by lessee.
Miller v. New York, L. & W. R.
Co. (N. Y.), 369.

Lessor's railroad not liable for
torts of lessee company. Miller
v. New York, L. & W. R. Co.
(N. Y.), 369.

Liability of company operating
road, for injury where there is
no evidence to show lease or
ownership. Pennsylvania R.

« AnteriorContinuar »