Case Name: The State of Washington, on the Relation of Northern Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff, v. The Superior Court for Yakima County et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1908-04-27
Citations: 49 Wash. 390
Docket Number: No. 6812
Parties: The State of Washington, on the Relation of Northern Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff, v. The Superior Court for Yakima County et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 390–392

Head Matter:
[No. 6812.
Decided April 27, 1908.]
The State of Washington, on the Relation of Northern Pacific Railway Company, Plaintiff, v. The Superior Court for Yakima County et al., Respondents.
Eminent Domain — Necessity—Certiorari—Review—Evidence — Sufficiency. Upon certiorari to review an order of condemnation by one railroad of part of the lands of another, the necessities of the two roads present questions of fact, and the findings of the trial judge will not be disturbed, where he had the advantage of seeing the witnesses, unless it is shown to be erroneous.
Same — Right to Condemn — Subscription to Stock — Evidence— Sufficiency. Upon condemnation proceedings by a railroad company, a showing as to the subscription of its stock is sufficient although the principal portion was subscribed for by a stenographer, without means, ■ employed in the office of the president of the company upon a small salary.
Certiorari to review an order of the superior court for Yakima county, Rigg, J., entered May 13, 1907, after a hearing on the merits, granting a petition to condemn a right of way through land owned by another railway company.
Affirmed.
B. S. Grosscup and Ira P. Englehart, for relator.
H. J. Snively and Danson & Williams (Fred H. Moore, of counsel), for respondents.
Reported in 95 Pac. 490.

Opinion:
Root, J.
The North Coast Railway brought an action to condemn a right of way for railroad purposes through a twenty-one acre tract of land owned by the Northern Pacific Railway Company in the city of North Yakima. The trial court, after due hearing, entered an order for the condemnation of a certain portion of the premises thus sought to be appropriated. Each company, feeling aggrieved by said order, has applied to this court for a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of the superior court. It is urged by the North ern Pacific Railway Company that the taking by the North Coast Railway of the portion awarded by the trial court would seriously interfere with the purposes for which it, the Northern Pacific Railway Company, will need, and for which it intended to use, these premises in the future, to wit: for storage and switching yards, repair, cleaning and coaling tracks, for roundhouses, ice-houses, refrigeration of cars, and other purposes incidental to its railroad business. The North' Coast Railway urges that the tidal court did not allow it a sufficient amount of land, and that the refusal to allow it a certain additional portion seriously interferes with the plans of construction and operation of its proposed railway line.
It will be seen that these contentions present questions of fact and opinion rather than questions of law. We do not believe a discussion of the evidence would serve any useful purpose. From an examination of it and a study of the exhibits, we are not prepared to say that the trial court's conclusion was erroneous. We think it is justified. Hearing the evidence, seeing the witnesses, being familiar personally with the premises and the general conditions and environment, we are satisfied from the record that the honorable trial judge endeavored to be fair with both of these parties, and that his conclusion was equitable and just and sustained by the evidence.
. It is urged by the Northern Pacific Railway Company that no proper showing was made of the subscription to the capital stock of the other company, in that the principal portion of said stock was subscribed for by a stenographer in the office of the president of the company, the stenographer being without financial means other than a salary of seventy-five dollars per month. In the light of former decisions of this court, the contention cannot be sustained. State ex rel. Biddle v. Superior Court, 44 Wash. 108, 87 Pac. 40; Burdin v. Washington etc. Assn., 41 Wash. 395, 83 Pac. 723; State ex rel. Oregon 11. & Nav. Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Wash. 321, 88 Pac. 334.
Finding no error in the record, the order of the superior court is affirmed.
Hadley, C. J., Dunbar, Crow, and Rudkin, JJ., concur.
Fullerton and Mount, JJ., took no part.