Carner v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. Ry. Co.
| Citation | 43 Minn. 375 |
| Parties | HENRY CARNER <I>vs.</I> CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1890 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
J. H. Howe, S. L. Perrin, and Daniel Rohrer, for appellant.
P. E. Brown, for respondent.
The action is for damages caused to property by the negligence of the defendant in running its trains, in consequence of which the property was destroyed. That the finding of defendant's negligence was supported by the evidence is conceded. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover, and, if so, what measure of damages, are the main questions to be decided. May 22, 1876, the plaintiff entered at the proper land-office 80 acres of land, under the act of congress of March 13, 1874, (18 U. S. St. at Large, 21,) entitled "An act to amend an act to encourage the growth of timber on western prairies," and up to the time of the injury complained of had held said entry, and complied with the provisions of the act. The injury consisted in setting fire to and destroying trees planted by plaintiff under his entry, and standing on, and hay which he had cut from, the 80 acres, and remaining on it. The defendant contends that, as the title to the land was in the United States, it was the owner of the trees, and of the grass from which the hay was made, and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover for injury to them. Plaintiff was not in wrongful possession of the land, as was the case in Lindsay v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 29 Minn. 411, (13 N. W. Rep. 191.) By his entry and compliance with the terms of the act he had acquired vested rights, even as against the United States. We held that in Red River, etc., R. Co. v. Sture, 32 Minn. 95, (20 N. W. Rep. 229,) in respect to one entering lands under the homestead acts of congress. The rights under the homestead acts, though differently acquired, are no greater than those under the timber-culture act. Under the latter act, the party entering has the right to occupy and cultivate the land, and owns the annual crops which he harvests, whether of grass not sown by him or of grains. As against the United States, he may not have a right to cut the trees for removal and sale, or for any purpose other than the proper cultivation of the land. His rights are analogous to those of one in under a contract to purchase, in which case the vendor might ordinarily, unless the contract provided otherwise, prevent the commission of waste. But, as against third persons, he is the owner. It is true the party entering the land may forfeit his rights to the United States by failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial