Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad v. Farrell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.—Hon. S. IT. Woodson, Judge. If there are peculiar benefits, which defendants’ land derives from the road, then certainly they should be considered, although some of his neighbors, whose lands are also taken, should likewise be benefited; and the rule is thus explained by the first instruction asked for by plaintiff, and which the court refused to give.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.—Hon. S. IT. Woodson, Judge. If there are peculiar benefits, which defendants’ land derives from the road, then certainly they should be considered, although some of his neighbors, whose lands are also taken, should likewise be benefited; and the rule is thus explained by the first instruction asked for by plaintiff, and which the court refused to give. Garnett v. St. Louis, 25 Mo. 505 ; L.$F. P. P. Co. v. Pickett, 25 Mo. 535; Newby v. Platte Co., 25 Mo. 258; Pacific P. P. Co. v. Chrystall, 25 Mo. 544; Lee v. P. P. Co., 53 Mo. 178. The defendants having no…
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
This was a proceeding under the statute, to appropriate for right of way for plaintifF’s road, a portion of defendants’ farm. Commissioners were appointed who allowed defendants $400. They filed exceptions to the commissioners’ report, and in March, 1879, there was a trial by jury, who allowed defendants $800, and from the judgment on that verdict, plaintiff has appealed. The following facts were established by the evidence: Defendants’ farm consists of sixty-one acres under fence, and lies about one and a quarter miles from the town of Independence, Missouri. The plaintiff’s road makes a cut…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Justice v. Town of LancasterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Edwards v. Bates CountyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1893
- Murphy v. St. Louis Type FoundryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888