Morin v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
| Decision Date | 19 December 1882 |
| Citation | 14 N.W. 460,30 Minn. 100 |
| Parties | George E. Morin v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant's railway crosses the farm of plaintiff, who brought this action in the district court for Sherburne county, to eject defendant and recover for the use and occupation of that portion of his farm on which the railroad is situated. Defendant answered, denying plaintiff's title, setting up occupation for more than twenty years, and asking to be allowed to condemn in case plaintiff established his title.
The action was tried before McKelvy, J., and a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict, as stated in the opinion. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Order reversed.
R. B Galusha and J. Kling, for appellant, cited Carli v Stillwater & St. Paul R. Co., 16 Minn. 234, (260.)
Wilson & Lawrence, for respondent, cited Winona & St. Peter R Co. v. Waldron, 11 Minn. 392, (515.)
Years ago the defendant laid out, built, and has since operated its line of railroad through the tract of land in question, which for upwards of one year prior to this action was possessed and claimed to be owned by plaintiff. Defendant has never acquired any right to the occupation of the land by purchase or otherwise, and its plea of a prescriptive right is unsupported by the evidence. The corporation denies, in its answer, plaintiff's title to the strip of land appropriated by it, and, in pursuance of the statute, in order to secure a permanent right of way, prays that, in case plaintiff establish his title, his compensation may be fixed and assessed by the jury in the action. Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, §§ 34, 35. The plaintiff had a verdict assessing his damages, and defendant appeals from the order denying a new trial.
It appears from the record, and is not seriously disputed by plaintiff's counsel in argument, that the plaintiff's evidence only established his title to an undivided half of the premises in question. His title to the remaining half was based on certificates of assignment of the interest of the state, by the county auditor, under Laws 1874, c. 1, § 129, and which are not, alone, evidence of title. Gilman v. Van Brunt, 29 Minn. 271, 13 N.W. 125. As, from the evidence and charge of the judge, the jury must have fixed the plaintiff's compensation upon the basis of his ownership of the entire tract, there should, we think, be a new trial on this ground, as likely to be more just to the parties than for this court to attempt to reduce the amount.
Certain exceptions to the charge of the court require, also, to be considered. Among other things, the court instructed the jury as follows on the question of damages: "You will consider what the value of the farm would be if the railroad was not on it, but if the railroad were in the immediate neighborhood, and then consider what it is now, and the difference would be the general damage to the farm." This is not, we think, strictly accurate. Plaintiff's proper compensation consists in the value of the land appropriated, and other damages to the farm caused by such...
To continue reading
Request your trial