« ForrigeFortsett »
R. Co., Goodrich v., (N. Y.).... 259 Rhodes v. Georgia Railroad &
New York, New Haven & Hart- Rine v. Chicago & Alton R. Co.,
Lake Shore & Michigan ern R. Co. v. Worthen, (Ark.) 589
653 Falls R. Co. In re, (Minn.)..... 619
ex rel. Coley, Chicago & Al- St. Paul Union Depot Co., State
ton R. Co. v., (I11.)..
629 V., (Minn.).
- , Indianapolis & St. Louis R. Savannah, Florida & Western R.
Co. v. Holland, (Ga.).
196 Steiner v. Philadelphia Traction Scott, East Line & Red River R. Co., (Pa.). ...
535 Co. v., (Tex.). ...
396 Stone v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Shacherl v. St. Paul City R. Co., (Pa.)...
522 (Minn.). .
233 Stupak, Lake Shore & Michigan Shaw v. New York & New England Southern R. Co. v., (Ind.). .... 582 R. Co., (Mass.). ..
547 Sullivan, Chicago, Burlington & Sheets, Louisville & Nashville R. Quincy R. Co. v., (Neb.). ..... 463 Co. v., (Ky.).
470 -v. Maine Central R. Ćo. (Me.) 195 Shenandoah Val. R. Co. v, Lucado's
v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., Adm'r, (Va.)... 315 (Mo.). .
-338, 484 Sher fey v. Evansville & T. H. R. Taylor v. Evansville & Terre Co., (Ind.)...
457 Skerrell v. Chesapeake, O. S S. W. Texas M. R. Co. v. Douglass, R. Co., (Ky.). .
.356, 368 Shreveport & H. R. Co., Ruther- Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Lester, ford v., (La.)....
.346, 368, 381 Shumacher v. St. Louis & S. F. R.
550 Co., (C. C.)...
.368, 413, 429 Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Johnson Sidman v. Richmond & D. R. Co., (Tex.). .
I22 (I. C. C.). .
35 Thomas, Yazoo & Mississippi ValSims v. East & West R. Co. of ley R. Co. v., (C. C.)..
599 Alabama, (Ga.)......
306 Trammel, State ex rel,. v. Hanni. Slate Creek Iron Co. v. Hall, (K’y.). 347 bal & St. Joseph R. Co., (Mo.). 581 Smith v. Central Railroad & Bank- Trautwein, Delaware, Lackawaning Co., (Ga.). ...
490 na & Western R. Co. v., (N. J.). 187 v. Georgia Pacific R. Co., Trenton Horse R. Co., Breeze v., (Ala.).... 143 (N. J.). ...
230 v. Humeston & Shenandoah Twenty-Third St. R. Co., Mayor, R. Co., (lowa).
278 etc., of City of New York v., (N. -0. New York Cent. & Hudson
640 R. R. Co., (N. Y.)...
354 Twiname, Citizens' Street R. Co. v. Winona & St. Peter R.
227 Co., (Minn.)...
289 Twitchill v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 24. Wrightsville & Tennille R. (C. C.)...
380 Co., (Ga.). .
320 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Billeter, Sobieski v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., (Neb.).
314 Usher v. West Jersey R. Co., (Pa.) 508 Southerland v. Wilmington & W. Vaughn v. California Cent. R. Co., R. Co., (N. Car.). ..503, 504 (Cal.)
363 Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Rob- Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific bins, (Kan.)..
316 R. Co., Walker v., (La.). ..... Southern Pacific R. Co., Kerigan Walker v. Vicksburg, Shreveport V., (Cal.). . 28 & Pacific R. Co., (La.).
172 State, to use of Wiley, Baltimore Wallace v. Western North Caro& Ohio R. Co. v., (Md.). .. 126 lina R. Co., (N. Car.). ex rel. Trammel v. Hannibal
v. Wilmington & N. R. Co., & St. Joseph R. Co., (Mo.). ..... 581 (Del.).
194 ex rel. Bell 7. Harshaw, (Wis.) 685 Watson v. St. Paul City R. Co. International & Great North
114 érn R. Co. v., (Tex.).
611 Weber v. Kansas City Cable R. Johnson v., (Ala.). 275 Co., (Mo.)..
117 ex rel. Wine v. Keokuk & West Jersey R. Co., Buchanan v. Western R. Co., (Mo.). . .... 694 (N. J.). .
59 of Mississippi, Louisville,
Usher v., (Pa.).
508 New Orleans & Texas R. Co. v. Western & A. R. Co. v. Lewis, (U. S.)....
.347, 369 v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Western North Carolina R. Co., Manitoba R. Co., (Minn.). ...
Wallace v., (N. Car.)......... 212 v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., Whalen v. Chicago & Northwest(Minn.).
636 ern R. Co., (Wis.).
White v. Central R. Co., (Ga.). .... 534 v., (Minn.). .....
289 Whitmore v. Boston & M. R. Co., Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Price (Mass.).....
331 County, (U. S.)....... Wiley, State to use of, Baltimore Woodward v. Oregon R. & Nav. •& Ohio R. Co. v., (Md.). ....... 126 Co., (Or.)...
..315, 484 Willamette Valley R. Co., Moakler Worthen, St. Louis, Iron Mountain v., (Or.).....
135 & Southern R. Co. v., (Ark.). .. 589 Williams v. Delaware, Lackawan- Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co., na & Western R. Co., (N. Y.).. 254 Smith v., (Ga.)....
320 Wine, State ex rel., v. Keokuk & Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. Western R. Co., (Mo.). 694 v. Thomas, (C. C.)...
599 Winona & St. Peter R. Co., Smith
AMERICAN AND ENGLISH
ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA R. Co.
(Minnesota Supreme Court, December 9, 1889.) Special Findings-Motion to Set Aside-New Trial.-When there is a general verdict, and also special findings of fact, it is not proper practice to move to set aside one of the findings of fact as contrary to the evidence, without asking for a new trial of the whole issue or of that particular question of fact, especially if setting it aside would require a judgment different from what would be required if it were allowed to stand.
Obstruction of Surface Waters-Construction of Railroad Across Prairie.The rule that a land-owner may improve his own land for the purpose for which similar land is ordinarily used, and may do what is necessary for that purpose—as, to build upon it, or raise or lower its surface, even though the effect may be to prevent surface water which before flowed upon it from coming upon it, or to draw from adjoining land surface water that would otherwise remain there, or to shed surface water over land on which it would not otherwise go-applied to a railroad company constructing its road across a prairie country.
APPEAL from District Court, Clay County.
GILFILLAN, C. J.-From the course of the trial in this case, as shown by the settled statement of the case, it is apparent that the parties did not, by consent, enter upon the
Complaint. trial of any other than the issues made by the pleadings. This makes it necessary to refer to the complaint to ascertain what issues it presents; that is, what act of the defendant it alleges as wrongful. It alleges that the defendant wrongfully, unlawfully, wantonly, negligently, and maliciously cut, dug, and made, and caused to be dug, cut, and made, two certain large ditches about six miles in length, one on each side of its roadbed, parallel with and about ten feet from it, and connected them by means of five large culverts, the locations of which are given, the ditches running through large quantities of low and wet land, and which ditches did and do gather and accumulate large quantities of water by draining said low and wet lands, and did and do at certain seasons of the year convey large and enormous quantities of surface water from said culverts and from said two ditches, which water, by reason of and on account of said ditches and culverts, was unnecessarily made and forced to run in large and destructive currents through the ditches and culverts over large quantities of land, including that of plaintiff, whereby plaintiff's land was overflowed and covered with water, damaging his crops. It is not alleged that there was anything wrongful in the mode of constructing the ditches or culverts; that the former were (if properly there) either too large or too small, or were unskillfully or badly constructed ; or that the latter were badly constructed, or were insufficient in capacity or number, or improperly located ; or that either ditches or culverts as constructed were unnecessary to the proper construction of the railroad. The complaint really calls in question only the right of the defendant to have the ditches and culverts there, even though necessary to the railroad, if their effect would be to accumulate surface water, and cause it to flow on plaintiff's land, where it would
not otherwise flow. The jury rendered a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff
, and also returned answers to 16 specific questions of fact, which the court submitted to them to find upon. The plaintiff moved to set aside one of the special findings on the ground that it was contrary to the evidence, which motion was denied; and the defend. ant moved to set aside the general vereict, because inconsistent with the special findings, and for judgment on the special findings, which motion was granted, and judgment was accordingly entered, and the plaintiff appealed.
Where there is a general verdict and also special findings, we do not think it proper practice to move to set aside one
of the special findings upon an essential fact on the Motion to set aside finding. ground that it is contrary to evidence, without ask
ing to have a new trial, either of the whole issue or of the particlar question of fact. If such a finding could be set aside on that ground, leaving the general verdict and other special findings to stand, then, if setting it aside would require a judgment different from what would be required if it were retained, the setting it aside on the ground stated would have the effect of a trial by the court without the jury.