The Railroad Came for the Tenant Farmers

Seattle Montana Railway Co., petitioner and appellant, vs. Joseph Scheike et al., respondents.

This was a proceeding under the act of March 21, 1890, to appropriate a strip of land 100 feet in width for a right-of-way for appellant’s railroad across lots 1 and 3 in section 3, township 25 north, range 3 east, in King County, and to determine the compensation to be paid to the owners and all others interested for the taking or injury to the land. One Patrick O’Meara owned both lots; the respondents were tenants of lot 3 under a five-year lease from August 12, 1889, of which about a year had expired when the proceedings began. The state was a nominal party because of its ownership of tide lands, a small portion of which the petitioner claimed would be occupied by the right-of-way, but it was not represented at trial.

Lot 3 lies on the shore of Puget Sound and was used by the respondents for gardening and for raising poultry and swine. Only a narrow strip between the water’s edge and a high bluff was actually devoted to those purposes; on it were the garden, orchard, dwelling house and other buildings used in their business. The railroad’s right-of-way crossed this portion, and the respondents claimed it included all the buildings except the dwelling house, which was only partly on the right-of-way, along with fences and many fruit trees; that the appropriation destroyed a large quantity of growing vegetables and deprived them of the most valuable part of their leasehold.

At trial the jury awarded the respondents $600, and the railroad appealed. The Supreme Court held that the central error was allowing testimony as to the value of the land and buildings rather than the value of the tenants’ unexpired lease. The respondents had only a limited interest in the land and were entitled to compensation only for damages to that interest. They were entitled to the difference in the market value of the use of the premises for the remainder of the lease before the railroad was built and after its construction—the diminution in value of their lease because of the appropriation. They could also recover for growing crops destroyed by the railroad, and for buildings they had erected for their own use and would be entitled to remove at the end of the term, or the cost of moving them. If the dwelling house had to be moved back from the right-of-way, the railroad should pay the cost.

For the error indicated, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

ANDERS, C.J. We concur: Hoyt, J., Scott, J. In the result, Stiles, J.