Brown v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. Plaintiff Brown purchased the land long after the railroad was constructed and in operation, and knew all the facts and circumstances surrounding the situation. He was not entitled to any consequential damages which resulted to. the tract of land by reason of the location of the road over it, and plaintiffs? second instruction, under the facts in the case, on the measures of damages was wrong.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. Plaintiff Brown purchased the land long after the railroad was constructed and in operation, and knew all the facts and circumstances surrounding the situation. He was not entitled to any consequential damages which resulted to. the tract of land by reason of the location of the road over it, and plaintiffs? second instruction, under the facts in the case, on the measures of damages was wrong. Railway v. Nyce, 48 L. R. A. 241; 61 Kan. 394; 59 Pac. 1040; Railroad v. Loeb, 118 Ill. 203; Railroad v. Trevarthen, 1 Col. App. 152, 27…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
These plaintiffs sued for the value of a strip of land alleged to have been appropriated by the defendant railroad companies for right of way, without condemning it, and for damage done to the remainder of the tract through which the strip runs. The parcel taken is one hundred feet wide and thirteen hundred feet long, comprising three acres out of a forty-acre tract. Plaintiffs claim $100 an acre, or $300 *207for the value of the parcel appropriated and $1,000 as the damage done to the remainder. The jury awarded them $300 in all and judgment having been entered for that sum, defendánts appealed.
I…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Webster v. Kansas City & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Ragan v. Kansas City & Southeastern RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898