| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="StephanDalal" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Takings and the Nineteenth Century Railroad
| >
> | Takings and the Nineteenth Century Railroad | | | Eaton v. Boston, Concord & Montreal R.R. (B., C. & M.R.R.):
A New Hampshire Supreme Court Decision from 1872.
by
| |
>
> | April 2013 | | |
| |
>
> |
NOTE: This document is currently under edit. UPDATED: Fri, April 24, 2015 -- 12:33:30 UTC | | | Introduction | |
<
< | Eaton versus Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad (B., C. & M.R.R.) specifically deals with two major legal concepts Eminent Domain, and strict liability. These two legal concepts gained a significant amount of attention and focus as a result of the need to address new and expanding issues created by the emergence and growth of the railroad in America throughout the nineteenth century [1]. Eaton vs. B., C. & M.R.R. occupies a significant space in the historical progeny of Eminent Domain and Property Right cases that emerged with the development of the railroad. | >
> | Eaton specifically dealt with two major legal principles within Eminent Domain, yet to be refined and expanded upon in the late Nineteenth Century: categorical takings--which I often refer to as 'strict liability'--and the coterminous relationship of the state Police Power and Takings. These two legal concepts gained a significant amount of attention and focus as a result of the need to address new and expanding issues created by the emergence and growth of the railroad in America throughout the Nineteenth Century [1]. Eaton occupies a significant space in the historical progeny of Eminent Domain and Property Right cases that attempted to deal with two deceivingly simple inquiries: (1) What is a taking? (2) What is just compensation? The force with which the iron horse raced across the landscape of late Nineteenth Century America made such inquiries especially relevant. | | | | |
<
< | Eaton versus Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad (B., C. & M.R.R.) was a New Hampshire Supreme Court Case decided in 1872 between a farmer (Eaton) and a Railroad company (B., C. & M.R.R.)[2]. The action brought to the court by Eaton asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to decide if B., C. & M.R.R. flooding of Eaton's farm was considered a taking under the Fifth Amendment's Eminent Domain clause, and if B., C. & M.R.R. was responsible for compensating the farmer for the taking [2]. In 1851, after the construction of the road, Eaton gave the defendants a warranty deed for part of his farm where the road is located, and on the same day signed the following release: “I, the subscriber, do hereby acknowledge that I have received of the Boston, Concord, & Montreal Railroad the sum of two hundred and seventy-five dollars, in full for the amount of damages assessed to me by the railroad commissioners of the State of New Hampshire, in conjunction with the selectmen of Wentworth, on account of the laying out of the said Boston,Concord, & Montreal Railroad through and over my land; and I do hereby release and discharge the said corporation from said damages” [3] The court held "a release of all damages on account of the laying out or construction of a railroad through and over the land of the releasor, does not cover damages occasioned to the remaining land of the releasor by the construction of the railroad over the land of other persons [3] | >
> | Eaton a New Hampshire Supreme Court Case decided in 1872 between a farmer (Eaton) and a Railroad company (B., C. & M.R.R.)[2]. The action brought to the court by Eaton asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to decide if B., C. & M.R.R. flooding of Eaton's farm was considered a taking under the Fifth Amendment's Eminent Domain clause, and if B., C. & M.R.R. was responsible for compensating the farmer for the taking [2]. In 1851, after the construction of the road, Eaton gave the defendants a warranty deed for part of his farm where the road is located, and on the same day signed the following release: “I, the subscriber, do hereby acknowledge that I have received of the Boston, Concord, & Montreal Railroad the sum of two hundred and seventy-five dollars, in full for the amount of damages assessed to me by the railroad commissioners of the State of New Hampshire, in conjunction with the selectmen of Wentworth, on account of the laying out of the said Boston,Concord, & Montreal Railroad through and over my land; and I do hereby release and discharge the said corporation from said damages” [3] The court held "a release of all damages on account of the laying out or construction of a railroad through and over the land of the releasor, does not cover damages occasioned to the remaining land of the releasor by the construction of the railroad over the land of other persons [3] | | | 
Background
Facts of the Case |
|