Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/173

 PART II.] ACTS WITHIN THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 179. § 179. When the property of a person is taken or injured, and the question is as to the amount of compensa- tion, certain species of benefits which, concurring benefits! with the injury, may have lessened the actual de- preciation of his property, are to be taken into consideration. If the whole of an owner's property in the vicinity is taken, manifestly no question can arise as to set off of benefits. When a portion only of a tract or piece of land is taken, the benefits accruing to the rest of the tract may be set off as against the damage done to it, but not as against the value of the portion taken; 1 and the benefits which may be set-off are those only that are direct and peculiar to the tract of which a part is taken, and not shared by that tract in common with lands in the vi- Kan. 745; Curtis v. St. Paul, etc., R. R. Co., 20 Minn. 28; Ham v. Wis- consin I. & N. Ry. Co., 61 Iowa, 716; Bangor & P. R. R. Co. v. McCorab, 60 Me. 290; Western Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hill, 56 Pa. St. 460; Selma R. & D. R. Co. v. Camp, 45 Ga. 180; Pfleger v. Hastings & D. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 510. 1 Robbins v. Milwaukee & H. R. R. Co., 6 Wis. 636; Chapman v. Oshkosb & M. R. R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 629; Neilson v. Chicago M. & N. Ry. Co., 58 Wis. 516; Fremont E. & ;M. V. R. R. Co. v. Whalen, 11 Neb. 585; Elizabethtowu & P. R. R. Co. 15. Helm, 8 Bush (Ky.), 681; Hayes v. Ottawa, etc., R. R. Co., 54 111. 373; Wilson v. Rockford, etc., P.. R. Co., 59 111. 273; Todd y. Kankakee, etc., R. R. Co., 78 111. 530; Mayor, etc., of Atlanta v. Central Ry. Co., 53 Ga. 120; Jones v. Wills Valley R. R. Co., 30 Ga. 43; Shipley v. Balti- more, etc., R. R. Co., 34 Md. 336; Woodfolk v. Nashville, etc., R. R. Co., 2 Swan (Tenn.), 422; East Ten- nessee & V. R. R. Co. v. Love, 3 Head (Tenn.), 63; Mississippi Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 54; Grafton & G. R. R. Co. v. Fore- man, 24 W. Va. 662; San Francisco, etc., R. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367; Henderson & N. R. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 173; Alabama & F. R. R. Co. v. Burkett, 46 Ala. 569; Philadelphia & E. R. R. Co. v. Cake, 95 Pa. St. 139. Cases which do not sustain this rule are Britton v. D. M. O. & S. R. Co., 59 Iowa, 540; Brooks v. Davenport & St. P. R. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 99; Giesy v. Cincinnati, etc., R. R., 4 O. St. 308; Cincinnati & S. Ry. Co. v. Long- worth, 30 O. St. 108; St. Louis, etc., R. R. v. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167; Isom v. Mississippi Central R. R. Co., 36 Miss. 300 ; New Orleans J. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Moye, 39 Miss. 374; Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227. In these cases the set-off of benefits was held excluded by language of the state constitutions. The Massachu- setts cases, on the other hand, per- mit set-off, even as against value of the portion of land taken. Meacham v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 4 Cush. ( Mass. ) 291; Upton v. South Branch Reading R. R. Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 600; Whitman v. Boston & M. R. R., 7 Allen (Mass.), 313; Childs v. New Haven & N. Co., 133 Mass. 253; also a Minnesota case, Winona & St. P. R. R. Co. v. Waldron, 11 Minn. 515. 153