Bangor & Piscataquis R. R. v. Chamberlain
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On facts agreed. The petitioners made written application to the county commissioners, to estimate the defendant’s damages for land taken for the location of the petitioners’ railroad; and after due proceedings, the commissioners estimated them at the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars, and made their return thereof in July, 1871. Thereupon the petitioners appealed.
Read the full summary
On facts agreed. The petitioners made written application to the county commissioners, to estimate the defendant’s damages for land taken for the location of the petitioners’ railroad; and after due proceedings, the commissioners estimated them at the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars, and made their return thereof in July, 1871. Thereupon the petitioners appealed. And after due proceedings, the jury estimated the damages at §485, and rendered their verdict accordingly, which was duly returned and confirmed. Neither party made any objections to the acceptance of the report of the person…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
The damages occasioned by the taking of land for railroad purposes are to be estimated in the County commissioners. If dissatisfied, either have the damages re-assessed by a jury. first instance by the party may appeal and ‘ When an appeal is *286taken, the losing party is to pay the cost thereon.’ R. S., c. 51, § 8.
In this case the damages were first estimated by the county commissioners. The railroad company was dissatisfied, and appealed. They were then re-assessed by a jury. The county commissioners estimated the damages at $650; the jury at $135. Which party recovers costs ? The statute says…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Anderson v. Gold Seal Vineyards, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1973
- State v. Miller Home Development, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of WaukeshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 2022
- Ballard Transfer & Storage Co. v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Trugreen Landcare, LLC v. Elm City Development & Construction Services, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.