Evans v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Citation86 Wis. 597,57 N.W. 354
Decision Date29 December 1893
PartiesEVANS v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, St. Croix county; E. B. Bundy, Judge.

Action by William S. Evans against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company for damages caused by the wrongful use of the street in front of plaintiff's premises. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by CASSODAY, J.:

It is alleged in the complaint, in effect, that First street, in Hudson, is 60 feet in width, and runs north and south, and has existed for more than 30 years; that prior to May 17, 1879, the Hudson & River Falls Railway Company constructed, and was then operating, two railway tracks on the westerly side of said street at the place in question; that May 17, 1879, one Elizabeth A. Denniston was the owner in fee simple of lot 1, block B, Willow River, now a part of said city, except 5 feet off the south side thereof, which lot is situated on the west side of said street, and extended to the center thereof, and upon which there was then situated, and for many years prior thereto, a warehouse used and occupied for the purpose of storing and handling grain and other farm products, and that said premises were chiefly valuable for such warehouse purposes; that May 17, 1879, the said Denniston, by an instrument in writing, granted to the said Hudson & River Falls Railway Company the right to construct, maintain, and operate its railroad in, upon, over, and through First street, in said Hudson, in front of all of said lot, except 5 feet off from the south side thereof, at any and all points in said street in front of said lot east of a line drawn parallel with, and 12 feet west of, the center line of said main track of the railway of said company, as the same was at that time constructed; that November 13, 1879, the said Denniston, by a warranty deed duly executed and acknowledged, sold and conveyed to the plaintiff all her right, title, and interest in and to said lot 1, described, and that the said plaintiff then became, and ever since has been, the owner, in fee simple, of said premises; that in 1881 the said plaintiff constructed an elevator in connection with said warehouse, and thoroughly prepared and fitted up the same for the business of handling grain to be shipped by railway to and from said warehouse, as well as by other means, and devoted nearly all of his entire time to said business, and that said business so conducted by him yielded him a net income of at least $1,500 per annum; that in 1882 the said company consolidated into and became the defendant company, with other railroad companies, and that the defendant has since maintained and operated said line of road so built and constructed, but that the defendant never obtained or acquired any other or further or greater right to maintain its line of railroad over, through, or upon said First street, or said lot 1, than those acquired from the Hudson & River Falls Railway Company as aforesaid; that in December, 1887, the defendant erected upon said First street, almost directly opposite to the plaintiff's said lot and warehouse, a passenger and freight station, consisting of one large building, and so located that the most westerly corner thereof extended nearly up to the east line of said street, so that the platform of said station house extended into said street a distance of nearly 10 feet; that upon the erection of said station the defendant caused a track to be laid along the easterly side of said street, and convenient to said passenger and freight station, and the same has been regularly and continuously used and occupied by the defendant for the loading and unloading of passengers and freight, and as a part of the main track of the defendant, and has, ever since such erection and occupation of such station house, occupied the entire width of said street at the point opposite lot 1, and for a long distance both north and south of the same, for the purposes of its railroad business; that since the erection of said depot the defendant has used said street opposite said lot in such a manner as to entirely destroy the use of the same as a public highway, and to entirely prevent the use of the same for the purpose of teams or business of any sort along said street; that directly south of said lot the defendant has maintained, during all of said time since the erection of said depot, and does now maintain a high and steep embankment through and along the center of said street, many feet above the natural surface of the same, and along which its said tracks are laid; that no crossing is maintained over, or passageway under, said embankment of said railroad track, at the intersection of the cross street south of the plaintiff's warehouse, and that by reason thereof it has been practically impossible for teams which have been driven to said warehouse to leave the same without being driven for a great distance along the side of said railroad tracks, and, by a long and circuitous route, back to the business portion of the city; that since the erection of said station the said track nearest to the plaintiff's warehouse has been used as a side track, for switching purposes and for the storing of cars, and for standing cars for the loading and unloading of freight and for the making up of trains, and has been so used that trains or parts of trains are being almost constantly pushed up and down said side track opposite said warehouse, and, for a great portion of the time during each day, cars have been left standing upon the track opposite the plaintiff's premises, at the first crossing north thereof, and which said crossing is the regular or usual way ordinarily used by residents of Hudson and vicinity of reaching plaintiff's premises, and the only practical route of reaching the same; that, by reason of such obstructions aforesaid, approaches to said warehouse are, and during all the time since the erection of said station house have been, for many hours each day, totally obstructed, and egress from and ingress to said warehouse by teams, or business of any sort, entirely prevented; that by reason of such use of said side track, and the noise, commotion, and annoyance attendant upon the use of said premises for switching and yard purposes, it is practically impossible to drive teams up to or near said warehouse, without their becoming greatly frightened and excited, and in much danger of becoming uncontrollable, running away, and destroying themselves and other property; that, by reason of the neglect and failure of the defendant to put proper planking between and along said tracks opposite said warehouse, it is impossible for teams and wagons to turn around on said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Johnson v. St. Joseph Terminal Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 11, 1907
    ...... willfulness or recklessness in the handling of the train in. question, there can be no recovery in this case. Evans v. Railroad, 178 Mo. 598; Sharp v. Railroad, 161. Mo. 214; Tanner v. Railroad, 161 Mo. 497; Davies. v. Railroad, 159 Mo. 1. (4) Plaintiff ......
  • Mahler v. Brumder
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • March 10, 1896
    ...which is deemed common to all. Zettel v. West Bend, 79 Wis. 316, 48 N. W. 379;Hay v. Weber, 79 Wis. 591, 48 N. W. 859;Evans v. Railway Co., 86 Wis. 603, 57 N. W. 354. Such being the law, it is obvious that the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this private action is no greater nor less by......
  • DePow v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 29, 1912
    ...the street for an unnecessary and unreasonable length of time. Fay v. Ry. Co., 131 Wis. 639, 111 N. W. 683;Evans v. Railway Co., 86 Wis. 597, 57 N. W. 354, 39 Am. St. Rep. 908;Bussian v. Railway Co., 56 Wis. 325, 14 N. W. 452;Janesville v. Railway Co., 7 Wis. 484 marg.; Crowley v. Railway C......
  • Henry v. Mason City & Ft. D. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 19, 1908
    ...Pa. St. 333, 32 Atl. 535, 47 Am. St. Rep. 916; Riedinger v. Marquette R. R. Co., 62 Mich. 29, 28 N. W. 775;Evans v. C. R. R. Co., 86 Wis. 597, 57 N. W. 354, 39 Am. St. Rep. 908. It is manifest that additional tracks laid in a street will entitle an abutting property owner to additional dama......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT