I. & G. N. R'y Co. v. Benitos

Citations

• 59 Tex. 326
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 166

Syllabus

<p>1. Right of action — Damages.— If a railway company, having under the statute the exclusive right to institute proceedings to condemn land for its roadway, fails to avail itself #f this right, and without the consent of the owner enters upon his land, the owner is entitled to resort to any court having jurisdiction, by reason of the amount of damage claimed, for redress of the wrong; following Sherman v. The Milwaukee, L. S. & W. R. R. Co., 40 Wis., 652, and other cases cited.</p> <p>2. Same.— In such case the burden of showing the interest which the plaintiff has in the land rests on him, for on its ascertainment depends the amount of damages to which he is entitled. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of his interest in the land taken for road-bed and right of way, the defendant having- failed to pursue the statutory method of condemnation. Gilman v. The Sheboygan & Rond du Lac R. R. Co., 40 Wis., 660, cited and approved.</p> <p>4. Evidence.-r-While a railway company may under the statute occupy public domain for its roadway, without being required to make compensation, it cannot avoid liability to one in possession of land appropriated by it without legal condemnation, by showing that the land owned by him at the date of a tax sale had been purchased by the state, the period of redemption under the statute not having expired.</p> <p>5. Damages.— In a suit against a railway company for injury resulting from going ’ through an inclosed field with its roadway, and exposing to destruction growing crops, evidence of what the value of the crops would have been if they had matured was of too speculative a character to form a proper basis for damages.</p> <p>6. Verdict.— See opinion for verdict for damages (there being no claim for other than actual damages) so excessive as to require a reversal.</p>