B. & M. R. R. v. Schluntz
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Cass county. Tried below before Pound, J. on question of damages and method of examining witnesses, cited: Railroad Co., in Matter of, 53 Barb., 457. 35 Howard’s Pr. (N. Y.), 420. R. R. Co. v. Hwmmel, 27 Pa. St., 99. R. R. Co. v. Lazarus, 28 Pa. St., 203. M. V. R. R. Co. v. Doran, 17 Minn., 188. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 16 Barb., 273. R. R. Co. v. Young, 33 Pa.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Cass county. Tried below before Pound, J. on question of damages and method of examining witnesses, cited: Railroad Co., in Matter of, 53 Barb., 457. 35 Howard’s Pr. (N. Y.), 420. R. R. Co. v. Hwmmel, 27 Pa. St., 99. R. R. Co. v. Lazarus, 28 Pa. St., 203. M. V. R. R. Co. v. Doran, 17 Minn., 188. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 16 Barb., 273. R. R. Co. v. Young, 33 Pa. St., 175. The damages are to be shown by facts, but must be estimated by the jury, and not of opinions of witnesses. Evansville R. R. v. FitzPatrieh, 10 Ind., 120. Farrard v. C. R. R., 21 Wis., 435. Harrison…
1Opinion of the Court
Lake, Ch.- J.
The matters assigned for error, and relied on by counsel as cause for a reversal of the judgment, are found in the evidence on the question of damages, and in the instructions of the court to the jury. The first point made by counsel for the plaintiff in error in their brief is, that the defendant and certain of his witnesses were permitted “ to testify as to the value of the land before and after the location of the road, without showing themselves qualified to fix such values.”
The defendant himself was the first witness called. He was subjected to a very lengthy examination…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lincoln v. Saratoga & Schenectady Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Evansville, Indianapolis & Cleveland Straight Line Railroad v. FitzpatrickIndiana Supreme Court · 1858
- Sioux City, Railroad v. BrownNebraska Supreme Court · 1882
- Harrison v. Iowa Midland R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Farrand v. Chicago & North-Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by16 opinions
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Sioux City & Pacific Railroad v. FinlaysonNebraska Supreme Court · 1884
- Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad v. MarleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
- Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad v. HarlinNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Langfeld v. State Dept. of RoadsNebraska Supreme Court · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.