Anderson v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1902
• Citation: 85 Minn. 337,88 N.W. 1001
• Parties: ANDERSON v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

85 Minn. 337

88 N.W. 1001

ANDERSON

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 31, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Freeborn county; Nathan Kingsley, Judge.

Action by Alexander Anderson against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The provision of Gen. St. 1894, § 2710, requiring railroad companies doing business in this state to furnish shippers of live stock, horses, cattle, sheep, etc., which proper facilities to convey and transport the same, does not authorize such companies to maintain stock yards in an improper manner, so as to constitute a nuisance, to the injury of adjacent property owners.

2. Evidence in this case considered, and held to justify a verdict for damages in behalf of plaintiff for injuries sustained by him through the maintenance of stock yards in an improper and unhealthy manner adjacent to his family residence.

3. Held, that a verdict of $352 for continuance of a nuisance in the maintenance of such stock yards for a period of more than four months is not excessive. H. H. Field and H. C. Carlson, for appellant.

H. H. Dunn and Morgan & Meighen, for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

Plaintiff claimed damages for a nuisance alleged to have been kept by defendant on its right of way adjacent to his living lot and residence, in the city of Albert Lea. Under proper issues the cause was tried to the court and a jury. Plaintiff recovered a verdict. After the denial of a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals to this court.

We are required, upon the verdict, to hold that the evidence establishes that defendant erected stock yards on its right of way within 60 feet of plaintiff's family dwelling, in a populous part of the city, and maintained them from August 18 until December 23, 1899, in such an unclean and filthy condition that noxious smells and impure odors were being continually emitted therefrom, so as to interfere with the comfort and enjoyment of plaintiff's home, and the health of himself, as well as of the members of his family. These stock yards were erected and used for the purpose of receiving and shipping cattle, hogs, and live stock over defendant's road. They consisted of several pens, and covered an area of 10 by 12 rods; being so situated with reference to the defendant's grade and the declining ground from plaintiff's house that it was impossible to secure drainage therefrom. It does not appear from the evidence that any alleviation of the evils was practically accomplished, but the unhealthful material naturally accumulating in such a place was seldom removed. Dead animals were allowed to remain an unusual and improper length of time and become putrid, which made the daily life of plaintiff and his family unbearable, and fully justified a verdict in his favor.

Defendant complains that it was prejudiced by the action of the jury in two respects: First, in arriving at their award upon an improper basis of compensation; second, excessive damages, given under the influence of passion and prejudice. So far as we apprehend defendant's assignments in these respects, we are unable to find any just ground for criticism of the orders of the trial court in the admission of testimony. The range of evidence covered a wide scope, embracing a full description of the manner in which the stock yards were conducted, and the character of the nuisance created and maintained, with the opinions of persons living in the neighborhood as to the diminution of the value of the use of plaintiff's dwelling occasioned by defendant's misconduct. The claim of defendant is rested, however, upon the theory that it had the right to select any place on its right of way for the maintenance of yards for reception and shipment of stock. This claim is based upon the provision of the statute which provides that railroad companies may be required to furnish facilities for that purpose. Section 2710, Gen....