Chicago, & Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Alexander

Citations

• 47 Wash. 131
• 91 P. 626
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 724

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain—Damages—Remoteness—Injury to Land Not Taken. In proceedings to condemn land for a railroad right of way, to be used as an approach to a stationary bridge, authorized by the Federal government over a stream navigable for small craft, it is error to permit the defendants to show damages that would accrue to their remaining lands in case the river is improved and the government requires the substitution of a drawbridge obstructing the shore of such remaining lands, where such prospect is very remote and condemnation is not sought of defendant’s shore rights, damages to which can be recovered in another action.</p> <p>Same—Damages—Evidence—Value of Property. On the question of the value of land condemned, it is inadmissible to show what price similar land near by is held at by another owner.</p> <p>Depositions—Examination of Witness—Exceptions. Upon taking a deposition before a trial judge, where objections are ruled on at the time and exceptions taken, the exceptions need not be renewed at the trial.</p> <p>Eminent Domain—Damages—Evidence—Values of Property-—• Experts. A witness not acquainted with values in a certain city, who examines a few manufacturing sites with a view of purchasing or locating in such city, is not qualified as an expert in real estate values in such city.</p> <p>Same—Value of Property—Offers. On the question of the value of land condemned, it is -error to permit the defendant, on examination in chief, to introduce evidence of offers that had been made for the land.</p> <p>Same—Value of Property—Order of Proof—Rebuttal. Up'on an issue as to damages to a tract of land, cut in two by condemnation for a railroad right of way, where the evidence on the part of the defendant shows that the value of the tract for a manufacturing plant is thereby destroyed, it is error to exclude expert evidence in rebuttal to the effect-that such a manufacturing plant as referred to by the defendants could be built and successfully operated on the two