Case Name: The Fort Street Union Depot Company v. The Peninsular Stove Company
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1895-01-22
Citations: 103 Mich. 637
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Fort Street Union Depot Company v. The Peninsular Stove Company.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
The Fort Street Union Depot Company v. The Peninsular Stove Company.
Union depot companies — Eminent domain — Appeal.
The questions involved in this case are ruled by Fort Street Union Depot Co. v. Backus, 92 Mich. 33.
Appeal from Wayne. (Gartner, J.)
Argued November 23, 1894.
Decided January 22, 1895.
Proceedings to condemn land for union depot purposes, under Act No. 244, Laws of 1881 (Iiow. Stat. chap. 93). Petitioner appeals from an award of $49,800 in favor of respondent.
Award set aside, and new trial ordered.
The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 92 Mich. 33.
p. A. Baker, for petitioner and appellant.
Edwin F. Gonely and Orla B. Taylor, for respondent.

Opinion:
Montgomery, J.
This is a proceeding for condemnation of lands. The trial in the court below occurred after the trial in the case of Fort Street Union Depot Co. v. Backus, 92 Mich. 33, and before the decision of that case by this Court. The same line of testimony was introduced, and the same contentions of counsel made, in this case, as were held in that case to have tended unreasonably to swell the verdict of the jury, and that decision must be held controlling.
It is strenuously insisted that the depot company has lost its right to appeal by having made payment of the award, and having occupied the land condemned pending the appeal. This question was likewise considered in the case of Fort Street Union Depot Co. v. Backus, and ruled adversely to the contention which is now made by the appellee. We have carefully considered the arguments adduced by the appellee, and do not feel justified in departing from the conclusion arrived at in that case.
It follows that the order should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
The other Justices concurred.