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

• Decision Date: 11 September 1886
• Citation: 35 Minn. 503
• Parties: HENRY G. EMMONS <I>vs.</I> MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

35 Minn. 503

HENRY G. EMMONSvs.

MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

September 11, 1886.

The plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Freeborn county, to recover damages resulting to him by reason of the failure of the defendant to fence its railroad. His allegations of injury and damage were substantially as follows: The plaintiff is and has been for many years the owner of a farm, through which defendant's railroad runs on right of way conveyed to it by the plaintiff on October 16, 1879. Plaintiff's farm is used and occupied as his homestead, is under cultivation and properly enclosed by a fence, and is useful for the purpose of raising stock, and upon it the plaintiff has raised and cared for a large number of horses, cattle and other live-stock. Since October 16, 1879, the defendant has continued daily to run its locomotives and trains through the farm, and its right of way is not and never has been fenced. By reason of defendant's failure to fence its right of way, plaintiff's stock and cattle have been in imminent peril and danger, plaintiff has been compelled to spend much time and money in watching his stock and cattle, and preventing them from being killed, and has been deprived of the beneficial use of his farm, and the value of the use and occupation of his farm for the purpose of raising stock thereon has been greatly diminished and destroyed, whereby plaintiff has sustained damages in the sum of $1,000.

Upon the trial, before Farmer, J., and a jury, the ownership, location, use and occupancy of the farm were admitted to be as alleged in the complaint, and it was also admitted that defendant has not fenced its right of way, and is daily running its trains thereon. Thereupon the defendant objected to the admission of any evidence to prove the injury and damage complained of, which objection was sustained, upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the action was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

Lovely, Morgan & Morgan, for appellant.

J. D. Springer, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

According to the facts alleged in the complaint, its theory is that a railroad company which neglects to fence its road is, under the statute, liable for the damages caused by such neglect to an abutting farm, in rendering its use less valuable, by exposing stock pastured or kept upon it to the dangers of an exposed and open railroad. The defendant insists that the damages recoverable, under the statute, are only the more direct and immediate damages caused by the killing or injuring of cattle getting access to the track for want of a fence, or the injuring of passengers or employes on trains which come in collision with such cattle. The statute (Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, § 57,) is as follows: "Any company or corporation operating a line of railroad in this state, and which company or corporation has failed or...