Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Union Lumber Co.

Citations

• 76 Wash. 563
• 137 P. 306
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1858

Syllabus

<p>Trial — View of Premises — Discretion. It being discretionary to grant a view of the premises, it is not error to refuse to allow a juror, who was substituted by consent after a view, to make a view of the premises.</p> <p>Eminent Domain- — Damages—Evidence—Sufficiency. A jury may award damages in a condemnation proceeding, although no witness testified as to the amount of the damages, where the plan of the improvement was shown by maps and drawings and explained by witnesses, and it was shown exactly what the petitioner desired to condemn.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Admissibility. In condemnation proceedings, it is not error to admit in evidence a plan of the contemplated improvement, without any stipulation or offer showing what was to be condemned, where such stipulation was subsequently made.</p> <p>Same — Damages—Evidence—Admissibility. In proceedings to condemn a right to cross a logging railroad, by elevating the logging road, evidence of a decrease in the fair market value of defendant’s sawmill and manufacturing plant, of which the logging road was merely a part or plant facility, on account of the hazard of operation at the crossing, is inadmissible as too remote and speculative.</p> <p>Same — Instructions. In proceedings to condemn the right to cross a logging road by elevating its tracks, instructions held to fully cover the case as favorably as defendant could ask, where they were to the effect that the jury may, in awarding damages, consider whether the logging road is diminished in value, its capacity reduced, or expense of operation increased, also the additional expense. to insure safety, excluding any damages or liability on account of accidents at the crossing, the measure of damages to be determined by reference to the fair market value of the defendant’s property including its sawmill plant of which the logging road was a part, before and after the changes, without regard to any benefits that might result from the construction of the petitioner’s