Patterson v. Detroit, L. & N.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1885 |
| Citation | 22 N.W. 260,56 Mich. 172 |
| Parties | PATTERSON v. DETROIT, L. & N.R. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to Clinton.
O.W. Baker and H.J. Patterson, for plaintiff.
M.V. & R.A. Montgomery, for defendant.
Plaintiff impleaded the defendant before a justice of the peace for unlawfully obstructing a public highway in the township of Oneida, in the county of Eaton, by its freight cars, by which the plaintiff was hindered and delayed from passing along said highway to a grist-mill; and by reason of such obstruction he was hindered and prevented from taking a certain train, and from transacting certain business at Ionia, and other damages particularly alleged, but unnecessary to mention. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the trial resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $13 damages. Defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the plaintiff recovered a judgment of $2.50 damages. The defendant brings the case into this court by writ of error and assigns error upon the refusal of the judge to charge as requested by defendant's counsel, and in instructing the jury "that upon the proofs plaintiff was entitled to recover two and one-half dollars damages."
It appeared upon the trial that the plaintiff was traveling along the public highway leading into the village of Grand Ledge from the farm of plaintiff, with his hired servant and team. He had a load of flour which he was taking to the grist-mill at Grand Ledge. The road he was traveling ran north and south, and is crossed by the railroad of defendant, which at this point runs nearly east and west. As he approached the railroad track he observed that it was obstructed by a train of freight cars standing on the side track, which also ran across the highway. The train was not separated at the highway crossing or the cars removed, so as to permit the plaintiff to pass, but he was kept and detained there and prevented from crossing for the period of 25 minutes, by reason of the cars of defendant obstructing the highway. Evidence was given of the damage suffered by reason of the detention, which was made up of loss of time of the man and team, and extra expense paid out by plaintiff and made necessary by reason of the detention. The defendant introduced no evidence whatever, but requested the court to charge the jury: (1) Upon the declaration and proofs the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. (2) The case made by the proofs...
To continue reading
Request your trial