Case Name: Louisiana & Frankford Plank Road Co., Respondent, v. Pickett, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1857-10
Citations: 25 Mo. 535
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louisiana & Frankford Plank Road Co., Respondent, v. Pickett, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 535–540

Head Matter:
Louisiana & Frankford Plank Road Co., Respondent, v. Pickett, Appellant.
1. The eighth section of the “ act to authorize the formation of associations to to construct plank roads and macadamized roads,” approved Pebruary 27, 1851, (Sess. Acts, 1851, p. 259,) is in conformity to the constitution in so far as it authorizes the jury, appointed to assess the damages received by the land owner, to take into consideration the “advantages of said road to said owner.”
2. The “ advantages” which may be taken into consideration in determining the “just compensation” to which the land owner is entitled, are the direct and peculiar benefits or advantages accruing to him in particular in respect of the residue of his land unappropriated, and not any general benefit or increase of value received by such land in common with other lands in the neighborhood.
3. The provision contained in the eighth section of the “ act to authorize the formation of associations to construct plank roads and macadamized roads, (Sess. Acts, 1851, p. 259,) authorizing the appointment of a “jury oí five disinterested land owners of the county to assess the damages,” &c., is in conformity with the constitution; they do not perform the proper and usual functions of a jury in civil or criminal cases.
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
E. Hunt, for appellant.
I. The “just compensation” to which the defendant was entitled was the value of the land taken without regard to any supposed advantages of the road to the defendant. (Constitution, art. 13, § 7.)
II. This value should be assessed by a jury of twelve men.
III. The proceedings are also erroneous and void because they do not show what quantity of land has been taken for the road; how wide a strip of how long ; or where it enters or leaves the quarter section ; nor is there any description separating it from the land not taken for the road.
A. H. Buckner, for respondent.
I. No exceptions were taken to tbe direction of tbe court to tbe jury as to tbe mode of assessment; nor was tbe objection made before tbe jury.
II. Tbe road bad been surveyed and located, and tbe petition states the quarter section through which tbe road is located ; so that if tbe award of tbe jury does not specify the particulars, they can be made perfectly certain. “ That is certain which can be made certain.” (4 Whart. 47.)
III. The act is constitutional so far as it authorizes tbe advantages to be set off against tbe injury sustained. (8 Barr. 445; 13 Barb. 169 ; Whitman v. Wilmington B. R. Co. 2 Harring. 514.) Damages may be assessed in any fair and equitable way without a jury. (Gardner v. Newburg, 2 Johns. Ch. 162, Jackson v. Winn, 4 Litt. 323 ; 2 Mass. 489 ; 4 Whart. 47.)

Opinion:
Napton, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The application of the Plank Road Company to the justice, in this case, stated that the road, as surveyed and located by their engineer and adopted by their board of directors, ran over the defendant's land, and the quarter section occupied and owned by the defendant is particularly described; but the exact route of the road is not specified any further than by reference to the survey of the engineer, which was not made a part of the petition nor filed with the papers.
In the circuit court, to which the case ultimately went by appeal, a jury of five men was ordered, and it was agreed that their sealed verdict should be filed in vacation and a judgment entered thereon by the court. At the first term of the court after the verdict was rendered, a motion was made to set aside the proceedings and dismiss the case, 1st, because the 8th section of the act of February 27, 1851, entitled "An act to authorize the formation of corporations to construct plank roads and macadamized roads," was unconstitutional; 2d, because a jury of five men instead of twelve were ap pointed ; 3d, because the jury were directed to allow advantages to set off tlie value of tlie land; 4th, because the application to the justice was not specific enough in relation to the exact position and quantity of the land desired to be condemned.
Upon this motion all the proceedings before the justice, and the appointment of a jury or commissioners by the circuit court, and the instructions of the court to the commissioners, were submitted to the court, and the motion overruled and, bill of exceptions taken. The instructions thus referred to in the bill of exceptions are as follows: " The jury shall go upon the land over which the road is proposed to run, and shall assess the damages sustained by said Pickett, taking into consideration the advantages, if any, which said road may be to said Pickett, and the jury shall make out in writing their verdict and all shall sign it, and it shall be sealed and delivered to the clerk by one of the jurors."
The point in relation to the constitutionality of the layr in question has been already considered and decided by this court in the case of Newby v. Platte County, ante, p. 258. The instruction given by the court was erroneous in not restricting the jury to such direct and peculiar benefits or increase of value as were occasioned to that part of Pickett's land not taken for the road, and directing them to discard from their consideration any general benefit or increase of value received by such land in common with other lands in the' neighborhood. This has been determined to be the proper construction of this and similar statutes. (See Newby v. Platte County, ante, p. 258; Pacific Railroad v. Chrystal, post, p.-.)
The appointment of five instead of twelve men to assess the damages is not, in our opinion, inconsistent with the constitution. That provision in the state constitution which declares that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate is not applicable to cases of this character. The persons appointed to assess the damages in cases of this kind do not perform the proper and usual functions of a jury in civil or criminal trials. They might with more propriety be termed commissioners, and their number is a matter of discretion with the legislature. (Livingston v. The Mayor of New York, 8 Wend. 100.)
The application to the justice should have stated with more, certainty the particular land desired; but as the line of the road was surveyed, and a reference made to the survey in the application, we should not for this cause alone think it necessary to reverse the judgment. The motion to dismiss was properly overruled; but the court should have appointed another commissioner with proper instructions.
The other judges concurring, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.