Isaacson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.

Decision Date25 March 1881
Citation8 N.W. 600,27 Minn. 463
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesISAACSON v MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RY. CO. AND OTHERS.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from order of district court, Freeborn county.

Lovely & Morgan, for respondent.

Tyrer & Whytock, for appellant.

GILFILLAN, C.J.

Action for trespass upon plaintiff's land. The damage alleged in the complaint was the tramping upon and spoiling grain growing on the land. Plaintiff had a verdict assessing his damage at $161.50. The objections made here to the verdict are that it includes items of damage other than that specifically mentioned in the complaint, to-wit, to grain, and that the court erred in charging the jury that they might consider other items of damage proved. The court did so charge, and as each of defendant's requests refused by the court contained a proposition excluding such other items, the charge and refusal were correct, if it was proper for the jury to consider anything but damage to the grain.

The plaintiff proved apparently all the damages naturally resulting from the trespass complained of, including other items than damage to the grain alone. From time to time objections on various grounds were made to the evidence of damage, but in no instance was it objected that the evidence was not relevant to the allegations of the complaint. That objection was not made until the proofs were all closed, and the court came to charge. The parties having until that time in the trial proceeded on the theory that the complaint was sufficient to admit the evidence, the court might then have ordered it amended to conform to the proofs, or it might do as it did, disregard the variance, and instruct the jury to find according to the evidence.

Order affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Beach v. Wakefield
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 11 Octubre 1898
    ...in this court. It may fairly be said that they have waived it." See, also, Bank v. Boesch, 90 Iowa 47, 57 N.W. 641; Isaacson v. Railway Co. 27 Minn. 463 (8 N.W. 600); Marschuetz v. Wright, 50 Wis. 175 (6 N.W. Bowers v. Thomas 62 Wis. 480 (22 N.W. 710); Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn. 300 (53 N......
  • Sward v. Nash
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1950
    ...defendant was prejudiced, since it could properly be considered by the jury without an amendment of the pleadings. Isaacson v. M. & St. L. Ry. Co., 27 Minn. 463, 8 N.W. 600; Martini v. Christensen, 65 Minn. 489, 67 N.W. 1019; 2 Pirsig's Dunnell, Minn.Pl. § 1689. However, when there is no ex......
  • Beach v. Wakefield
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 11 Octubre 1898
    ...in this court. It may fairly be said that they have waived it.” See, also, Bank v. Boesch, 90 Iowa, 47, 57 N. W. 641;Isaacson v. Railway Co. (Minn.) 8 N. W. 600;Marshuetz v. Wright (Wis.) 6 N. W. 511;Bowers v. Thomas (Wis.) 22 N. W. 710;Erickson v. Fisher (Minn.) 53 N. W. 638. It is held in......
  • Bowman v. Eppinger
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 1 Abril 1890
    ... ... any. Thoreson v. Harvester Works, 29 Minn. 341, 13 ... N.W. 156; Isaacson v. Railroad Co., 27 Minn. 463, 8 ... N.W. 600 ...          Thirteen ... errors are ... ...
  • 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