Minneapolis St Ry Co v. Emmons
| Decision Date | 10 May 1893 |
| Docket Number | No. 240,240 |
| Citation | 37 L.Ed. 769,13 S.Ct. 870,149 U.S. 364 |
| Parties | MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. CO. v. EMMONS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Action brought in a state court of Minnesota by Henry G. Emmons against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company to recover damages resulting from defendant's failure to fence its tracks through plaintiff's lands. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the judgment was affirmed in the supreme court of the state. 42 N. W. Rep. 789. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
The cause was twice before the supreme court of the state before the entry of the judgment now sought to be reviewed. See 29 N. W. Rep. 202, and 36 N. W. Rep. 340.
Albert E. Clarke, for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Hill, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff below (the defendant in error here) is a citizen of Minnesota, and for some years previously and at the commencement of this action was the owner of a farm in that state of 160 acres, which he occupied with his family as a homestead. He inclosed the farm with a suitable fence, cultivated it, and kept stock upon it. In October, 1879, he sold and conveyed to the defendant, a railway corporation organized under the laws of the state, a right of way for a railroad across the farm, 50 feet wide on each side of the road. Soon afterwards the company constructed the road on the right of way purchased, but neglected to build and maintain any fences on either side of it, or cattle guards where the road enters and leaves the land purchased, as required by the statute of the state; and to recover damages for such failure the present action was brought.
The statute which was passed by the legislature in 1876 provided that all railroad companies in the state should, within six months after its passage, 'build, or cause to be built, good and sufficient cattle guards at all wagon crossings, and good and substantial fences on each side' of their roads, and declared that they should be liable for domestic animals killed or injured by their negligence, and that a failure to build and maintain cattle guards and fences as above provided should be deemed an 'act of negligence on the part of such companies;' and, by its fourth section, that any company or corporation owing and operating a line of railroad within the state, which had failed and neglected to fence its roads, and to erect crossings and maintain cattle guards, as required by the terms of its charter and the amendments thereof, should thereafter '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 damages, if paid within ten days after notice of such damages.' Gen. Laws Minn. 1876, c. 24.
In 1877 this last section was amended so as to declare that any company or corporation guilty of the failure or neglect mentioned should be 'liable for all damages sustained by any person in consequence of such failure or neglect.' Chapter 73, Gen. Laws Minn. 1877; Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 34, § 57.
On the trial it appeared in evidence that the defendant had operated its road, and run daily trains through the farm, without building the required fences on each side of its track, or constructing cattle guards at the wagon crossings, and the plaintiff, who kept cattle upon his land, was in consequence obliged, at much expense, to watch his cattle, for some years before the commencement of this action, to keep them from being killed by passing trains, which subjected him to great inconvenience, loss of time, and expenditure of money, and deprived him of the free and beneficial use and enjoyment of his land, and lessened its value. He recovered a verdict of $1,000 for the damages sustained, upon which, and for costs, judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stoll v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co.
... ... L.Ed. 339; Boyce v. Anderson, 2 Pet. 150, 7 L.Ed ... 379; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N.Y. 509, 30 ... Am.Rep. 323; Railway Co. v. Emmons, 149 U.S. 364, 13 ... Sup.Ct. 870, 37 L.Ed. 769; Railway Co. v. Mackay, ... 127 U.S. 205, 8 Sup.Ct. 1161, 32 L.Ed. 107; Railway Co ... v ... 337, 55 L.Ed. 369, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Missouri Pacific ... Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205, 8 Sup.Ct. 1161, 32 ... L.Ed. 107; Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Herrick, ... 127 U.S. 210, 8 Sup.Ct. 1176, 32 L.Ed. 109; Railway Co ... v. Pontius, 157 U.S. 209, 15 Sup.Ct. 585, 39 L.Ed ... ...
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Indiana
...16 Sup. Ct. 934, 40 L. Ed. 1105;Gulf, etc., Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 15 Sup. Ct. 802, 39 L. Ed. 910;Minneapolis, etc., Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364, 13 Sup. Ct. 870, 37 L. Ed. 769;Louisville, New Orleans, etc., Co. v. Miss., 133 U. S. 587, 13 Sup. Ct. 348, 33 L. Ed. 784; Smith v. Alabam......
-
Truax v. Corrigan
...L. Ed. 611; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, 24 Sup. Ct. 638, 48 L. Ed. 971, and Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364, 13 Sup. Ct. 870, 37 L. Ed. 769, that of railway and adjoining landowner. 3 Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed.......
-
Southern Railway Company v. Railroad Commission of Indiana
... ... U.S. 650, 16 S.Ct. 934, 40 L.Ed. 1105; Gulf, etc., R ... Co. v. Hefley (1895), 158 U.S. 98, 15 S.Ct ... 802; 39 L.Ed. 910; Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v ... Emmons (1893), 149 U.S. 364, 13 S.Ct. 870, 37 L.Ed ... 769; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v ... Mississippi (1890), 133 ... ...