Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Co. v. Thayer

Citations

• 65 Wash. 402
• 118 P. 318
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 938

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain — Appeal—Review—Verdict. A jury’s award of damages in a condemnation case will not be disturbed on appeal, on conflicting evidence of values, where it is supported by substantial evidence; notwithstanding Rem. & Bal. Code, § 931, providing that an appeal presents the justness of the award.</p> <p>Eminent Domain — Damages—Remoteness. Where condemnation for a railroad right of way increased the expense of shipping shingle bolts upon lands not taken, the loss is an element of damages not too remote or speculative.</p> <p>New Tbial — Subpbise — Notice oe Issues — Eminent Domain. Where, on the opening of a condemnation trial, which lasted several days, defendant’s counsel gave notice of a claim for damages by reason of additional expense in shipping shingle bolts on the land, which was only twenty miles away, the relator cannot after verdict claim surprise from such a claim entitling it to a new trial; no claim of surprise or continuance being asked at the time notice was given.</p> <p>New Tbial — Newly Discovebed Evidence — Diligence. In a condemnation ease, a new trial for newly discovered evidence as to the damages to land not taken is properly denied for want of diligence, where the relator’s engineers had visited and examined the land and should have advised themselves as to the situation before the trial.</p> <p>Chadwick and Morris, JJ., dissenting.</p>