Pederson v. City of Rushford
| Decision Date | 11 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 21,780,21,781 |
| Parties | LUDVIG J. PEDERSON v. CITY OF RUSHFORD AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Two actions in the district court for Fillmore county, one to recover $300 for wrecking and removing a wood shed and the other to recover $250 for cutting down shade trees. The cases were tried together before Catherwood, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $100 and $90 respectively. From an order denying their motion in each case for a new trial, defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Street -- easement of public -- use by abutting owner.
1. The abutting lot owner owns to the center of the street or alley and his ownership includes trees growing therein. The public has but an easement, and the abutting owner may use his land for a purpose compatible with the use of the public easement.
Conversion of tree and shed in alley.
2. Applying the principles stated, it is held that the defendants were liable for removing a wood shed and cutting down and converting a tree growing in an alley upon which the plaintiff's property abutted.
Hopp & Larson and D. S. Prinzing, for appellants.
Webber, George & Owen, for respondent.
Two actions tried together in both of which the plaintiff Ludvig J. Pederson was the plaintiff. One action was to recover for removing the plaintiff's wood shed located in an alley in the rear of his lots. The other was to recover damages for cutting down and converting an elm tree located in the same alley near the plaintiff's lots. The court found for the plaintiff in both actions.
1. The abutting lot owner owns the fee to the center of a platted street or alley and his ownership includes trees growing therein. Town of Rost v. O'Connor, 145 Minn. 81, 176 N.W. 166; Town of Glencoe v. Reed, 93 Minn. 518, 101 N.W. 956, 67 L.R.A. 901, 2 Ann. Cas. 594; West v. Village of White Bear, 107 Minn. 237, 119 N.W. 1064. The public has but an easement and the abutting owner may use the land for a purpose compatible with the use by the public of its easement. Ellsworth v. Lord, 40 Minn. 337, 42 N.W. 389; L. Realty Co. v. Johnson, 92 Minn. 363, 100 N.W. 94, 66 L.R.A. 439, 104 Am. St. 677; Town of Glencoe v. Reed, 93 Minn. 518, 101 N.W. 956, 67 L.R.A. 901, 2 Ann. Cas. 594. Recently we distinguished between the right of the abutting owner to use the land subject to an ordinary public easement, and his right when the easement is for a railroad right of way and necessarily exclusive. Chicago G.W.R. Co. v. Zahner, 145 Minn. 312, 177 N.W. 350.
2. The plaintiff owns the northerly one-half of lots 73, 74 and 75 in block 6 in the city of Rushford. They extend in a northerly and southerly direction. Elm street is on their east. The rear of the lots is to the north. The plat made in 1856 shows an alley along the north of the lots extending from Elm street to the west. The alley is a cul de sac with its westerly terminus at the west line of the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff's wood shed, built in 1915, was in the alley and was in part northerly of the center line. A native rock elm was near the woodshed and was wholly upon the plaintiff's one-half of the alley.
In March, 1918, the defendant city caused to be sent to the plaintiff by mail the following notice:
In April, 1918, the city and its codefendants felled the rock elm and converted it into cordwood, and in July, 1918, the defendant and its codefendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial