52 Iowa 303 | Iowa | 1879
I. The petition alleges that plaintiff has owned the property in question, lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, block 5, .Scott’s addition to the city of Des Moines, since November 11th, 1874; that in 1857 the defendant established the grade -of Walnut and Ninth streets, adjacent to the lots, and re-established the same grade in 1861; that in 1876 defendant changed .the grade of those streets so that they would be excavated
It is first insisted that plaintiff* is not entitled to recover, however much the value of property may be depreciated by the change of grade, unless the city, by negligence in making-the change, caused direct injury to the property. It may be that this rule prevails in the absence of statute. But Code, section 469, provides that where an established grade is altered “ in such manner as to injure or diminish the value of property,” the city shall pay the owner the damages, to be assessed in the manner prescribed. The city is made liable not only for injury to the property, but for damages resulting from the value of the property being diminished. The court below properly held that plaintiff is entitled to recover for the diminution of the actual value of the property caused by excavating the streets.
III. The statute under which plaintiff claims to recover,. Code, section 469, provides as follows:
“ When any city or town shall have established the grade of any street or alley, and any person shall have built or made-*305 any improvements on such street or- alley, according, to the established grade thereof, and such city or town shall alter said established grade in such a manner as to injure or diminish the value of said property, said city or town shall pay the owner or owners' of said property, so injured, the amount of such damage or injury.”
Counsel for defendants insist:
“ 1st. That the improvements [contemplated in the provision] must be made after the grade was established.
“2d. They must be made according to the grade.
“ 3d. The improvements must be made on the street.
“ 4th. The injury must be done to such improvements and not to the lots on which they are situated.”
IY. In reply to these points, we say:
Y. It is said the improvement must be made on the street. The statute evidently contemplates improvements upon.lots which are situated on the street. The particle on, when used to designate a place, means at, near, adjacent to. This is obviously its import as used in the language of the statute under consideration.
YI. As we have just remarked, the improvements became
In the case at bar the city did annul the assessment. The grade had been changed and the excavation made. The statute cannot be so intepreted that it will permit the city to escape from the payment of damages by. annulling the assessment. The rights of the plaintiff were not affected thereby and he can recover in this action.
It is insisted by the defendant that the instruction is erroneous, in that it was the province of the jury to determine the identity of the issues of that case and this. The objection is-not well taken. It was the province of the court to determine what issues are involved in each case, and what matter was decided in the chancery action. Necords of this kind must
It is proper to say that we think the court correctly interpreted the record, which in our opinion establishes the facts stated by tlie court in the instructions.
IX. It is insisted that the damages are excessive. The testimony upon this branch of the case is conflicting. ’We are not authorized to say that the amount of the verdict is not warranted by the fair preponderance of the proof.
We have considered all questions urged in the argument of counsel, and reach the conclusion that the judgment of the court below is without error. It is, therefore,
Affirmed.