Kaiser v. St. P., S. & T. F. R. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 August 1875
• Citation: 22 Minn. 149
• Parties: MARY KAISER <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL, STILLWATER & TAYLOR'S FALLS RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

22 Minn. 149

MARY KAISERvs.

ST. PAUL, STILLWATER & TAYLOR'S FALLS RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

August 24, 1875.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court

for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

John B. & W. H. Sanborn, for appellant.

James N. Castle, for respondent.

CORNELL, J.

It is a principle of universal application that for every wrongful act of a party, directly affecting injuriously the property rights of another, the wrong-doer is liable to the party injured to the extent of the pecuniary damage actually sustained by reason of such act. The doctrine relied upon by defendant, and the authorities cited in its support — that a party is not responsible in damages for the necessary consequences of a lawful act done in a reasonably careful and prudent manner — have no application whatever to the case at bar.

It is admitted that the defendant is a corporation, created under and in pursuance of the general laws of the state, for the purpose of constructing and operating the line of railroad indicated in the pleadings, with such corporate powers and privileges, and only such, as it has the right thereunder to exercise for that purpose. It is also admitted that the alleged injuries to plaintiff resulted from the acts of defendant in entering, without plaintiff's consent, upon a highway located upon and across the east end of her lots and premises, whereon was a dwelling in which she resided, and there raising and constructing a high embankment and obstruction of earth and stones, within fifteen feet of her said dwelling-house, and that said company has never acquired any right so to do from plaintiff, by condemnation or otherwise. This was clearly a trespass on the part of the defendant, as settled by the repeated adjudications of this court. Harrington v. St. P. & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 215, 224, and cases cited; Spencer v. St. P. & S. C. R. Co., (ante p. 29.)

Defendant seeks to justify on the ground that it had lawful right to do what it did, and predicates such right upon the following admitted facts: That in the construction of the line of railroad which it was authorized to build and operate, it became necessary to build and maintain it across the said travelled highway, at a point near the plaintiff's said lots, and at a grade some four feet below the grade of said highway; that the character of such crossing, and of the grounds in the vicinity, was such that, to reduce the grade...