Devine v. St. Paul & Sioux City R. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1875 |
| Citation | 22 Minn. 8 |
| Parties | ROBERT DEVINE <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL & SIOUX CITY RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
John L. Macdonald, for appellant.
R. A. Irwin, for respondent.
This action is brought to recover the value of three horses and a colt, property of plaintiff, alleged to have been struck by a locomotive running upon defendant's railroad, and thereby killed, or so injured as to be worthless.
There is no evidence in the case tending to show any negligence in the management of the train. The only ground on which it is sought to charge the defendant is for negligence in not maintaining a proper fence on the side of its road. Chapter 25, Laws 1872, enacts as follows: Section 3 prescribes and regulates the costs and disbursements to be recovered in actions against "any railroad company" for killing or injuring a domestic animal. Section 4 reads as follows: "Any company or corporation, owning and operating a line of railroad within this state, and which company or corporation has failed and neglected to fence said road, * * * as required by the terms of its charter and the amendments thereof, shall hereafter be liable, in case of litigation, for treble the amount of damages suffered by any person in consequence of such neglect, to be recovered in a civil action, or actual damage if paid within ten days after notice of such damage."
The rule of liability thus prescribed is not only entirely different from the rule irrespective of statute, but also entirely different from the rule contemplated by § 3, and the inference is irresistible that the two sections were not intended to apply to the same class of railroad corporations, but that § 4 has reference to such companies only as have failed and neglected to fence as required by the terms of their charters and the amendments thereof, while § 3 has reference to other companies only. And although §§ 1 and 2 are, in terms, applicable to all railroad companies, we are of opinion that the proper interpretation of the act, as a whole, confines their application to the same companies referred to in § 3. In other words, § 4 is to be read as an exception to the general provisions of the preceding sections — an exception having the effect to prescribe a peculiar rule for the class of companies therein designated, and to take them out of the operation of §§ 1, 2 and 3.
On any other construction of the chapter the class of companies designated in § 4 might, for the same act of negligence in failing to build and maintain a fence, be liable to the same person for single damages and extra costs in one action under §§ 1, 2 and 3, and for treble damages in another action under § 4. A construction leading to a result so unjust and unreasonable is not to be adopted unless it is a necessary construction, as it certainly is not in this case.
It is further to be observed that if §§ 1, 2 and 3 were intended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whittier v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
...1866, c. 12, §§ 12, 15. It would, therefore, seem to be manifest that the motion for a nonsuit should have been granted. Devine v. St. P. & S.C. R. Co. 22 Minn. 8; Winger v. First Div. St. P. & P. R. Co. Id. The question as to whether the fence was removed at the crossing at the request of ......
-
Watier v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co.
...whatever to the liabilities arising from the statutes obliging railway companies to build and maintain fences. In Devine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 22 Minn. 8, it was held, under the special charter of the defendant in that case, that it was bound to fence through improved lands only, and,......
-
Gillam v. Sioux City & St. Paul R.R. Co.
...contemplated by those sections. By reason of these peculiar featuresof section 4 in the act of 1872, this court, in Devine v. The St. P. & S. C. R. Co. 22 Minn. 8, held that the act related to two classes of companies-those upon whom there was no charter obligation to fence, as to which com......
-
Fleming v. St. Paul & Duluth R.R. Co.
...franchises it has succeeded, were not embraced in section 4, c. 25, Laws 1872, and therefore do not come within the case of Devine v. St. P. & S. C. R. Co. 22 Minn. 8. To the defendant, then, sections 1, 2, and 3, of chapter 24, Laws 1876, (which is a re-enactment of the act of 1872) are ap......