Carli v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Company
| Decision Date | 16 May 1884 |
| Citation | 20 N.W. 89,32 Minn. 101 |
| Parties | Christopher Carli v. Union Depot, Street Railway & Transfer Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after verdict in his favor of $ 1. The amendments of the complaint asked by plaintiff, and refused, were substantially as follows: (1) increasing the amount alleged to have been expended by plaintiff in making and maintaining the alley, from $ 2,000 to $ 3,000; (2) adding to an averment that, owing to defendant's unlawful acts, the plaintiff was compelled to and did sell his property for $ 2,000 less than it was worth but for defendant's acts, the following, "that the said property was depreciated in value to that amount;" (3) an averment of the amounts expended and to be expended in prosecuting a suit to restrain the alleged illegal acts of the defendant.
This injunction suit is reported as Carli v. Stillwater Street Ry. & Transfer Co., 28 Minn. 373.
This disposes, we believe, of the substantial matters presented by the case, and, as the result, the order denying a new trial is affirmed.
J. B Brisbin, for appellant.
Marsh & Searles, for respondent.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was owner of certain business lots in the city of Stillwater, across which ran a public alley, called Stimpson's alley, affording valuable access to plaintiff's said property; that plaintiff has expended large sums of money, to wit, more than $ 2,000, in making, grading, and maintaining said alley, for the purpose of securing an easy and feasible route to and from his said lots; that on or about August, 1878, defendant wrongfully and unlawfully entered upon said alley, against plaintiff's protest, and then and there, along the entire length thereof constructed a line of railway track, which it has ever since maintained and has ever since used for the daily transportation of large numbers of cars; that the construction of said track as aforesaid, and the running of the cars thereon as aforesaid, render any other mode of travel along said alley at all times difficult and dangerous and at times nearly impossible, and have damaged and depreciated at all times largely the value, use, enjoyment and occupation of the said property of plaintiff; that on or about May 19, 1879, plaintiff sold the fee of his said property, reserving to himself all rights or claims which he then or might thereafter have for the "use, occupation, trespass, taking of, and damage to" said property by defendant as aforesaid; that, owing to said wrongful and unlawful acts of defendant, the plaintiff was compelled to and did sell his said property at a much less price than the same was worth but for said acts of defendant, viz., in the sum of $ 3,000; that said acts of defendant were and are a nuisance to this plaintiff in the premises, and the use and occupation of said property; that, by reason of the several matters herein before alleged, the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $ 5,250.
The complaint alleges no facts showing that the wrongful acts of the defendant worked any permanent injury to plaintiff's property; hence the proper measure of actual damages was that laid down in Brakken v. Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co. 29 Minn. 41, 11 N.W. 124, S. C. 31 Minn. 45, viz., the difference between the fair rental value of the plaintiff's property with the railway track constructed and maintained and used upon it, and its rental value without such track. These damages would, of course, accrue only while plaintiff owned the property, and not as to any part thereof of which lessees of the plaintiff were in possession during all the time between the entry of defendant upon the alley and plaintiff's sale of the property. It follows that the questions addressed to Esaias Rheiner were properly excluded as calling for an estimate of permanent damages to the plaintiff's property. The fact that the trial court subsequently admitted testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial