Fort Street Union Depot Co. v. Peninsular Stove Co.
The Fort Street Union Depot Company v. The Peninsular Stove Company
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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 *638 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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.