City of Chicago v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | 1,437. |
| Citation | 162 F. 678 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO v. TROY LAUNDRY MACHINERY CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Frank L. Childs and George W. Miller, for plaintiff in error.
Horace Kent Tenney and Henry W. Wolseley, for defendant in error.
Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.
Defendant in error, plaintiff below, recovered judgment for damages caused by the undermining of its premises by water escaping from one of defendant's water tunnels.
The assignment that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion, made when the evidence was all introduced, to take the case away from the jury, cannot be considered, for the bill of exceptions neither recites nor otherwise shows that it contains all the evidence. But defendant really has lost nothing, because under assignments respecting the admission of evidence and the giving of instructions the propositions on which defendant relies for reversal are presented.
The exceptions were to rulings that plaintiff was entitled to recover on the following state of facts: In 1887 defendant built the tunnel, about 55 feet below the surface, across the lands of one Winterbotham, who continued to be the owner. On completion of the tunnel defendant began to pump water through it, and continued to do so until the damage in suit was done. In 1903 the owner erected a building and leased it to plaintiff. In the preparation of the foundation a number of piles penetrated the tunnel. After plaintiff was in possession, the flowing water carried away the soil so that the building sank. Defendant never obtained from the owner or from plaintiff or from any one any right to enter or be upon the lands for any purpose. Neither the owner nor plaintiff knew of the tunnel until after the damage was done.
Defendant's propositions are: (1) That the only trespass shown was committed before plaintiff's tenancy began, and therefore defendant was answerable to the owner alone; and (2) that the trespass was not the proximate cause of the injuries complained of. Both involve the same mistake of fact. The trespass with shovel and trowel in 1887 was not the only trespass. That trespass appears as a mere historic incident in the case. The unlawful building of the tunnel gave defendant no right in the land. The forcing of water across the land was unlawful, whether with a tunnel or without a tunnel, whether pumped in 1887 or in 1903....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langenberg v. City of St. Louis
... ... v. Reconstruction Oil Co., 66 P.2d ... 1215; City of Chicago v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co., ... 162 F. 678; Lake Shore Building Co. v ... ...
-
Langenberg v. City of St. Louis
...plaintiff is entitled to relief. Union Oil Co. v. Reconstruction Oil Co., 66 Pac. (2d) 1215; City of Chicago v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co., 162 F. 678; Lake Shore Building Co. v. City of Chicago, 207 Ill. App. 244; Blackford v. Heman Construction Co., 132 Mo. App. 157, 112 S.W. 287; Austin ......
-
Curtis v. Fruin-Colnon Contracting Co., FRUIN-COLNON
...873-875, Secs. 49-50; 63 C.J. 1049, Sec. 251; Jeffries v. Williams, 5 Exch. 792; 155 Eng. Reprint 347; City of Chicago v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co., 7 Cir., 162 F. 678, 89 C.C.A. 470. The negligence charged is leaving the entire ditch open for about three months, in soil of this type, with......
- Crucible Steel Co. of America v. Holt
-
CHAPTER 9 LEGAL AND COMMERICAL MODELS FOR PORE-SPACE ACCESS AND USE FOR GEOLOGIC CO2 SEQUESTRATION
...may be committed by . . . any . . . unprivileged entry on the land beneath the surface."). [119] City of Chicago v. Troy Laundry Mach. Co., 162 F. 678 (7th Cir. 1908) (construing Illinois law); Maye v. Yappen, 23 Cal. 306 (1863); Wachstein v. Christopher, 57 S.E. 511 (Ga. 1907); Mamer v. Lu......