Willamet Falls Canal & Lock Co. v. Kelly
Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon
This was an action by a corporation to bayo certain lands of tlie defendants, and a riglif of -way upon the same, appropriated to the plaintiff’s use, under the general incorporation law, for the construction of plaintiff’s proposed canal.
Read the full summary
This was an action by a corporation to bayo certain lands of tlie defendants, and a riglif of -way upon the same, appropriated to the plaintiff’s use, under the general incorporation law, for the construction of plaintiff’s proposed canal. The complaint set out the time, place, manner, object and purposes of plaintiff’s incorporation; particularly designated the parcel of land sought to be condemned and appropriated; asserts the necessity of the appropriation, and that each of defendants is owner of an undivided half of the land in question. This parcel of land is sixty feet wide and one…
1Opinion of the Court
Upton <T.,
instructed the jury as follows:
The defendants have admitted by their pleadings, that the plaintiff is entitled to take the land designated, upon making reasonable compensation to the defendant, and you have been called to determine what is reasonable compensation.
*102There are two distinct branches, or grounds of estimate, to be considered in arriving at your conclusions. One is the actual value of the strip or parcel of land, sixty feet wide, that the plaintiff proposes to take; and you are also to estimate such other damages, if any there be, as will result to the owners of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State Highway Commission v. BaileyOregon Supreme Court · 1957
- State Highway Commission v. CallahanOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Patterson v. Baker Grocery Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914