City of Springfield v. Schmook
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. — Hon. ~W. F. Geiger, Judge. The instructions asked by plaintiff and refused, and referred to in the opinion, are as follows: 1. In considering the damages (if any) accruing to the defendant from the opening of said street, the jury will not take into consideration any 'consequential damage, but must consider only the direct and immediate damage to said lot. 2. If the jury believe from the evidence that defendant, Schmook, agreed to take…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. — Hon. ~W. F. Geiger, Judge. The instructions asked by plaintiff and refused, and referred to in the opinion, are as follows: 1. In considering the damages (if any) accruing to the defendant from the opening of said street, the jury will not take into consideration any 'consequential damage, but must consider only the direct and immediate damage to said lot. 2. If the jury believe from the evidence that defendant, Schmook, agreed to take $100 from the city for the strip of land taken in the opening of Phelps street, and said agreement, or offer was not made…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, J.
This was a proceeding, on the part of plaintiff to condemn a portion of the defendant’s property for the purpose of a street.
i streets_openmode ofda¿omputatlon'
The proceedings are admitted to have been regular, and the only questions before us -relate to the measure of damages. In order to determine the damages sustained, where the whole property has not been taken, the effort should be to find the value of the land taken, and then to determine how much the land left was increased or diminished by reason of the appropriation. Mississippi River Bridge Co. v. Ring, 58 Mo. 491, or the process…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mississippi River Bridge Co. v. RingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Jamison v. City of SpringfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Mayor of Lexington v. LongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1861
3Cited by23 opinions
- Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Springer v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Metropolitan Street Railway Co. v. WalshSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Peoria Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Peoria Terminal Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1893
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.