City of Grand Rapids v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

City of Grand Rapids v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.

55 N.W. 359, 95 Mich. 473, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 667

DecidedMay 31, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 55 N.W. 359 (City of Grand Rapids v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Grand Rapids v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co., 55 N.W. 359, 95 Mich. 473, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 667 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, C. J.

The city of Grand Eapids instituted • proceedings under Act No. 124, Laws of 1883, as amended in 1887 and 1889, to condemn land for the extension of Allen street in said city across lands of the respondent company and three others, all of whom appeared and opposed the condemnation. The jury rendered a verdict against the city “that the said, opening of said Allen street, as petitioned for, was not a public necessity,” whererrpon an 'appeal was taken on behalf of the petitioner. On the [474]*474hearing it is conceded that no notice of appeal was served on three of the defendants, as required by section 21 of said act.

A review of the case as against one defendant would afford no relief, as the verdict would stand as to the others, which would prevent the opening of the street as prayed. The proceeding is a statutory one, and, the notice not having been given .to all, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Portage Lake, etc., Co. v. Haas, 20 Mich. 326; Canfield v. The Brig City of Erie, 21 Id. 160; People’s Ice Co. v. The Steamer Excelsior, 43 Id. 336.

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hooker, C. J.

The city of Grand Eapids instituted • proceedings under Act No. 124, Laws of 1883, as amended in 1887 and 1889, to condemn land for the extension of Allen street in said city across lands of the respondent company and three others, all of whom appeared and opposed the condemnation. The jury rendered a verdict against the city “that the said, opening of said Allen street, as petitioned for, was not a public necessity,” whererrpon an 'appeal was taken on behalf of the petitioner. On the [474]*474hearing it is conceded that no notice of appeal was served on three of the defendants, as required by section 21 of said act.

A review of the case as against one defendant would afford no relief, as the verdict would stand as to the others, which would prevent the opening of the street as prayed. The proceeding is a statutory one, and, the notice not having been given .to all, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Portage Lake, etc., Co. v. Haas, 20 Mich. 326; Canfield v. The Brig City of Erie, 21 Id. 160; People’s Ice Co. v. The Steamer Excelsior, 43 Id. 336.

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.W. 359, 95 Mich. 473, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-grand-rapids-v-chicago-west-michigan-railway-co-mich-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack