92 Wis. 230 | Wis. | 1896
There is but one question of importance in this case. Briefly stated, the question is this: In assessing the plaintiff’s damages, were the jury entitled to consider the damages resulting to the plaintiff’s remaining lots from the building of the viaduct, or not? The. court answered this question affirmatively, and allowed witnesses to be examined as to the damage resulting to the salable value of the plaintiff’s remaining property by the erection of the viaduct, and instructed the jury that they might and should assess such damages in their verdict. It is claimed by the city that this was error, and that the jury could only allow such damages as would naturally result from the taking of the land for a street to be built in the ordinary way.
We are clearly of opinion that the ruling of the court was correct. All damages, present or prospective, which are the natural, necessary, or reasonable incident of the improvement, not resulting from negligent acts, should be assessed. Denver City I. & W. Co. v. Middaugh, 12 Colo. 434. The probable grade and condition of a proposed street, as it may reasonably be expected to be when put. in such a state as is
No other question requires attention.
By the Court.-— Judgment affirmed.
