City of Seattle v. Washington Refining Co.

Citations

• 102 Wash. 286
• 172 P. 1161
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 939

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain—-Damages-—-Instructions. In condemnation proceedings for an alley which divided appellant’s plant into two tracts, upon an issue as to the damage to the remainder, a requested instruction to the effect that the jury should not consider the fact that the city might grant a permit to connect the two tracts hy overhead or underground crossings is not covered by a general instruction that the abutting property owner has no greater rights to the alley than any other inhabitant of the city; and it is error to refuse the request where evidence of the damage was based upon the assumption that the owner had no right to make the connection.</p> <p>Same. Such requested instruction is not covered by an instruction that the jury might consider damages caused by compliance with any ordinance of the city governing the erection of such plants as the owners, where it referred to fire ordinances in evidence and not to any ordinance permitting connections over or under the alley.</p> <p>Appeal—Record—Instructions. Where all the instructions were not embodied in appellant’s abstract on appeal, they may be brought up in a supplemental abstract or in the record.</p>