Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Farwell
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error, from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tuttle, J. The jury’s view of the premises is evidence in the case, and an instruction stating a different rule is error. See Omaha & R. V. R. Go. v. Walker, 17 Nebr., 435; Garroll v. State, 5 Nebr., 35; Washburn v. Milwaukee & L. W. R. Go., 59 Wis., 364; Neilson v. Chicago, M. & N. R. Go., 58 Wis., 517; Remy v. Municipality, 12 La.
Read the full summary
Error, from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tuttle, J. The jury’s view of the premises is evidence in the case, and an instruction stating a different rule is error. See Omaha & R. V. R. Go. v. Walker, 17 Nebr., 435; Garroll v. State, 5 Nebr., 35; Washburn v. Milwaukee & L. W. R. Go., 59 Wis., 364; Neilson v. Chicago, M. & N. R. Go., 58 Wis., 517; Remy v. Municipality, 12 La. Ann., 500; Parks v. Oity of Boston, 15 Pick. [Mass.], 198; Toledo R. Go. v. Dunlap, 47 Mich., 456; Springfield v. Dalby, 139 111., 34; Michiga/n Air Line R. Go. v. Barnes, 44 Mich., 222; Harper…
1Opinion of the CourtNorval, J.
The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company instituted condemnation proceedings in the county court to acquire right of way over and across certain real estate belonging to J. V. Farwell, Jr. Commissioners were duly appointed by the county court to assess the damages, who awarded the landowner the sum of $2,200. The railway company prosecuted an appeal to the district court, where the cause was tried to a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of Farwell in a like sum. Prom the judgment subsequently entered thereon he prosecuted a petition in error to this court, which was sustained,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Carter v. ParsonsNebraska Supreme Court · 1939
- Drollinger v. Hastings & Northwestern RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1915
- Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co. v. ThomasNebraska Supreme Court · 1905
- State v. RutherfordNebraska Supreme Court · 1971