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

• Decision Date: 13 February 1888
• Parties: EDWARD BYRNE <I>vs.</I> MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

38 Minn. 212

EDWARD BYRNE vs. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 13, 1888.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Le Sueur county, Edson, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict of $600, for plaintiff. The opinion upon an appeal in the former case between these parties will be found in 29 Minn. 200.

H. J. Peck, for appellant.

J. B. Brisbin, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

In this action a recovery of damages is sought for the overflowing of the plaintiff's land in the years from 1881 to 1885, both inclusive, the cause of such injury being, as is alleged, the constructing and maintaining by the defendant of its railroad, so as to obstruct a natural water-course, (the Cannon river,) which flows across the plaintiff's land. The obstruction complained of was not on the plaintiff's land. There had been a prior action between the same parties, and a judgment in favor of this plaintiff for injuries resulting from the same cause during several years prior to 1881. The court properly received in evidence the record of the former action and recovery. It was evidence of the plaintiff's title, which was put in issue by the defendant in both actions. It was also admissible upon the question whether the railroad had been so constructed as to obstruct the natural flow of the stream, which was also in issue in both actions.

In general, the proper measure of damages for the destruction or loss of growing crops is the value of the same standing upon the ground, and not the loss as measured by the rental value of the land. Lommeland v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 35 Minn. 412, (29 N. W. Rep. 119;) Folsom v. Apple River Log Driving Co., 41 Wis. 602. This general rule of damages was properly applied in this case, the plaintiff having been prevented, by the acts complained of, from securing the crop of hay upon the meadow land belonging to his farm. The case is readily distinguishable in several respects from that of Brakken v. Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 41, (11 N. W. Rep. 124,) and 31 Minn. 45, (16 N. W. Rep. 459,) in which case there was no destruction or loss of property. We see no reason to doubt that the actual loss of the perennial crop of grass was susceptible of being proved and measured with reasonable certainty. Whether the damages might have been measured also by the diminution in the rental value, if the case had been presented upon that theory, we need not determine.

...