Sterling v. Rogers
This text of 29 Iowa 604 (Sterling v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendants and others petitioned for a road to be located through plaintiff’s land. Plaintiff claimed damages. In the circuit court he was allowed a certain amount, being the value of the land taken, and now appeals, insisting that the court erred in the measure of damages adopted.
As we1 understand the record the conclusions of law, upon the facts found, were in strict accord with the rules recognized and settled by this court in 2 Iowa, 288 (Henry v. D. & P. Co.), and in 1 id. 386 (Sater v. B. & M. Plk. R. Co.) No question was made as to the effect of the located road in leaving plaintiff’s land open and unfenced, and the duty of the court to consider these facts in the estimation of damages.
The court simply declined to allow the costs of a fence which might never be built.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 Iowa 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-v-rogers-iowa-1870.