Case ID: scl_40/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elizabeth W. White vs. The Charlotte and So. Ca. R. R. Company.
    
    In estimating the “ loss or damage” to a land-owner by tbe right of way taken by the Charlotte and South-Carolina Railroad Company, the Jury may estimate the value of the land occupied by the Company; the deterioration of parcels isolated; the alterations of arrangement required about the homestead; the loss of time, and expenditures, caused by any increase of care or distance which had been occasioned; and the injury to the value of the place as a stand for a public house.
    
      Before Wardlaw, J., at Chester, Fall Term, 1852.
    The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
    “ This was an appeal by a land-owner from the assessment made by Commissioners, of the damage done to her land by the right of way through -it, taken by the Railroad Company. (See the Charter, 11 Stat., Sec. 19, 1848. Sec. —, 1846.)
    “ The land consists of two tracts, near to each other, but not adjoining, both within two miles of Chester village — one containing two hundred acres, the other nine acres. The Railroad runs through the first tract for half the distance, with an embankment five or six feet high; and for the other half with a cut, varying in depth from three to fifteen feet; leaving but one crossing, which is where a public road crosses. Directly in front of the house, forty-seven yards from the door, the cut is six feet deep.. Three small parcels of land, lying between the Railroad and the public road, are so isolated and misshapen as to be unworthy of fencing. A field, formerly within a quarter of a mile of the house, can now be reached only by going down the Railroad on one side, and up it on the other, a distance of a mile and a quarter. A barn and two stables have been separated from the mansion; and a well and a few fruit trees, at an old settlement, have been injured. Upon the second tract, the Railroad passes over one corner, with a high embankment, occupying one acre, and leaving the other eight acres open to*the public road, which bounds the tract on one side, and uninjured, except that communication with places over the Railroad is interrupted, or made circuitous.
    
      “ The defendant’s husband, in his lifetime, twenty years ago, bought the first tract in several portions, at $4 an acre, or thereabouts ; and afterwards he built upon it a two-story frame house, painted and well finished, (the contractpriceof which was $700,) and made other improvements. He kept a house of entertainment, particularly for horse-drovers. The house is enclosed by palings ; between these and the Railroad is the public road, and a short distance .from the house the public road forks.
    “ The Commissioners assessed the damages as follows :
    First tract- — -
    Eight and a half acres taken, at $20 an acre $170
    Five acres cut off and damaged, at $8 an acre 40
    For moving barn and stables - - 35
    245
    Enhancement of value, 200 acres, at $1 per acre 200
    Excess ... $45
    Second tract—
    One acre taken - - - 20
    Eight acres, enhanced value - 15
    Excess ... g
    Assessment in favor of land-owner - - $50
    “ Three brothers-in-law of the appellant, her only witnesses, gave various opinions as to the value of the parcels cut off, and as to the items of damage done ; but all agreed that the tract was by $500 less valuable than it would be if no Railroad was in the district. The value of the stand for a place of .entertainment, some of them said, was destroyed; but one of them seemed plainly to consider the deep cut in front of the house, and consequent inconvenience, as the principal cause of deterioration.
    “ For the Company, it appeared, by one witness, that the small tract, which in 1845 had been bought for $60, when it was mostly in woods, had since been cleared, and now brings a rent of $30 a year; that $20 an acre has been offered for it, and $350 asked ; and that the appellant offers the other tract at $12 an acre.
    “ The only remaining witness testified that, in his opinion, the intrinsic value of the whole land for agricultural purposes did not exceed $5 an acre ; that all the lands in the neighborhood had been raised in .price by the Railroad, and that he would certainly take the land as it now is, rather than take it without a Railroad in the neighborhood.. -
    “ I directed the jury th’at this was a question of compensation, not one of trespass, and therefore that certain violations of the Charter, spoken of on the part of the appellant, could not be considered ; that they should estimate “the loss or damage” on one side, and the “benefit and advantage” on the other, and if the former was greater, find the excess for the appellant; that under the latter head would fall any increase in the price of the land, or increase in the comforts or facilities of the land-owner, in diminution of his labor or expenses, appreciable in money, and caused by the Railroad ; under the former head would fall, not matters of sentiment or fancy, but such losses and inconveniences as could be estimated in money: amongst which were the value of the land actually occupied ; the deterioration of the pajeéis isolated; the alterations of arrangement required about the homestead ; the loss of time and expenditures, caused by any increase of care or distance which had been occasioned; and the injury, if any had been done, to the value which the place had as a stand for a public house.
    “ The jury found for the appellant $250.”
    The Company appealed and now moved for a new trial, on the grounds
    1. Because the presiding Judge erred in admitting evidence of damages wholly conjectural, and incapable- of pecuniary valuation.
    2. Because the presiding Judge erred in charging the jury that the damage to the appellant’s stand, as a place of public entertáinment, might be considered in estimating the damages to her land.
    
      3. Because the evidence was, that the enhanced value of the lands of the appellant exceeded the damage arising from the construction of the road of the Company.
    4. Because the damages found by the jury are excessive and unreasonable.
    
      McAliley, for appellant.
    
      Dawkins, Thomson, contra.
   Per Curiam.

In this case the Codrt is satisfied with the result. The motion is dismissed.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Frost, Withers and Whitner, JJ., concurring.

Motion dismissed.