Reusch v. Northern Ohio Trac. & L. Co.

Citations

• 24 Ohio C.C. Dec. 540

Syllabus

<p>BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS^ — EMINENT DOMAIN — NEW-TRIAL.</p> <p>1. Motion for New Trial Need not Follow Exact Lánguage of Statute..</p> <p>A motion for a new trial need not follow the exact language of the statute, if the causes enumerated as grounds for a new trial be such as are embraced within the meaning of the statute.</p> <p>2. Bill of Exceptions in Condemnation Proceedings to Preserve Review-on Preliminary Hearing Taken in Time if Computed from Overruling New Trial.</p> <p>In an action by an interurban railway company for the appropriation of land, a bill of exceptions is taken in time to preserve the case for review as to the preliminary hearing, if the time, allowed for such filing has not expired when computed from the overruling of the motion for a new trial.</p> <p>3. “Construction” Comprehends Such Alteration as Will Empower Interurban Company to Appropriate Land to Relocate Tracks to, Avoid Curves and Grades.</p> <p>When it becomes necessary for an interurban railway company-to make changes in the construction, of its road, or to relocate its tracks in order to avoid dangerous or difficult grades or curves or to shorten its line, the word “construction” as used in the statute will be held to include such alteration and to empower the company to appropriate land therefor.</p> <p>4. “Necessity” to Authorize Railway to Condemn Private Property is-Reasonable not Absolute Necessity.</p> <p>The “necessity” required under the statute to authorize an appropriation of private property for railway purposes, is a reasonable, as distinguished from an absolute necessity, and such ■ reasonable necessity is established when it is shown that dangerous curves and grades will be thereby eliminated and the road made safer and, its service to the general public rendered more efficient!</p>