John Imbescheid vs. Old Colony Railroad Company

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1898-05-20

171 Mass. 209

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment on the verdict awarding damages and interest from the date of the taking is affirmed; a property owner may recover interest on compensation from the date of taking through the date of verdict, notwithstanding that the owner retained possession and used the property after the taking.

The petitioner's land and buildings were taken by the railroad company, but he refused to vacate and continued occupying the property for a year before being ejected through an equity proceeding. He was awarded damages of $17,478.40 as of the taking date, plus interest accruing from the taking until the verdict. The petitioner argues that this interest award should be reduced or eliminated because he retained possession and use of the property after the taking occurred.

The court affirmed the damages award including interest. Under established precedent, when property is taken, the owner's right to compensation and interest accrues immediately upon the taking, regardless of whether the former owner subsequently occupies the land without legal right. The court reasoned that allowing the owner's post-taking occupation to offset or reduce the interest award would complicate damage assessments, particularly in cases where only partial land is taken. Instead, the law provides a clear rule: compensation is calculated based on the legal effect of the taking as of that date, with interest running from the taking forward until payment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether interest on condemnation damages runs from the date of taking despite owner's continued occupation
What effect an owner's unlawful possession after taking has on the damage award and interest calculation
Whether post-taking occupancy by the former owner constitutes a setoff or reduction to interest owed

Procedural posture

The case came before the court on a report of the verdict, presenting a question of law regarding the computation of damages and interest in a taking of land and buildings.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Barker, J.

The verdict is for damages assessed at the sum of $17,478.40 as of the day when the land and buildings were taken, and for an added amount for interest from the time of the taking to the date of the verdict. The petitioner refused to vacate the land and buildings when requested, after the taking, and continued to use and enjoy them for a year, and gave them up only when the respondent brought against him a bill in equity founded on the taking and the petitioner’s refusal to give up possession. The question presented by the report is whether, under these circumstances, the petitioner can recover in the present proceedings interest from the date of the taking.

The petitioner’s loss of title occurred at the date of the taking. His compensation was then due, and his right to recover it with interest from that date is settled. Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. 198, 208. Reed v. Hanover Branch Railroad, 105 Mass. 303. Hampden Paint & Chemical Co. v. Springfield, Athol, & Northeastern Railroad, 124 Mass. 118. Old Colony Railroad v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1, and cases cited. Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, 125 Mass. 544, 550. Bancroft v. Cambridge, 126 Mass. 438, 440. Drury v. Midland Railroad, 127 Mass. 571, 585. Sherwin v. Wigglesworth, 129 Mass. 64. New York & New Hngland Railroad v. Drury, 133 Mass. 167. Frazer v. Bigelow Carpet Co. 141 Mass. 126. Sawyer v. Boston, 144 Mass. 470.

From the date of the taking the petitioner’s possession was no longer that of an owner, but of an occupant in possession, without right and against the defendant’s right. Of whatever value this actual possession without right may have been to the petitioner, or whatever damage it may have caused to the defendant, it is immaterial to the present case. The statute makes no provision that such an occupation shall be considered in reduction of damages, or set off against interest. In many instances the whole of an owner’s land is not taken, and the damages have regard not only to the value of the land taken but to the effect of the taking upon the value of other lands of the same owner. It is important to have a definite rule for their assessment, and one as simple as may be. The rule adopted leaves upon one side, unless perhaps where it is admitted that there has been a definite agreement of the parties to the contrary, all questions growing out of the occupancy of the premises by the former owner after the date of the taking, as well as all questions of agreement as to the mode of use of the property or rights acquired under the taking, and awards compensation upon the theory that the owner is to be paid for what is the legal effect of the taking, his damages assessed as of its date, and with interest because the damages were not paid when due. Old Colony Railroad v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1. Gardner v. Brookline, 127 Mass. 358, 364. Howe v. Weymouth, 148 Mass. 605, 607. Googins v. Boston Albany Railroad, 155 Mass. 505. Roberts v. Cambridge, 164 Mass. 176, 180. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad v. Miller, 165 Mass. 514. If, as in the present case, the owner retains possession after the taking, the rights of the parties growing out of that possession are not to be settled in the proceedings for damages occasioned by the taking.

Judgment on the verdict.