Pierro v. St. Paul & N. P. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 39 Minn. 451,40 N.W. 520
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Decision Date: 23 November 1888
• Parties: PIERRO v ST. PAUL & N. P. RY. CO.

39 Minn. 451

40 N.W. 520

PIERROvST. PAUL & N. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 23, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Former decision in this case (37 Minn. 314,34 N. W Rep. 38) followed, holding that a former recovery for use and occupation, in an action to recover the possession of real property, is a bar to a subsequent action for injuries to the estate during the same period of occupancy.

For a single and completed trespass upon and injury to an entire tract of land several actions for damages cannot be maintained. A recovery of damages in respect to a part of the land will bar a subsequent recovery in respect to another part of the tract, the cause of action being entire.

An action commenced in the state district court, in respect to lands described in the complaint as being in “Bottineau's addition to Minneapolis,”was removed to the circuit court of the United States. The certified complaint in that court described the lands as being in “Bottinen's addition to Minneapolis.” The record in the latter court held prima facie as applicable to the land in question in Bottineau's addition.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HICKS, Judge.

Action by Michael Pierro to recover damages for the alleged wrongful entry upon his land by the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company, and the construction by defendant of a railroad thereon, and for damages to crops on adjacent land of plaintiff. Upon the trial defendant offered in evidence, as a bar to the action, the judgment roll in a former action of ejectment by plaintiff against defendant railway company in the United States circuit court for the district of Minnesota, which showed an adjudication as to defendant's right of way through plaintiff's land. This was excluded, on objection of plaintiff, as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. Plaintiff had a verdict against defendant for $2,500, and appealed from an order granting a new trial, unless he should consent to a reduction of the verdict to $1,500. In the supreme court the order was affirmed, (see 34 N. W. Rep. 38,) and, after a new trial and verdict for defendant, plaintiff has appealed from an order refusing another new trial.

Jordan, Penney & Hammond, for appellant.

D. A. Secombe, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

The decision upon a former appeal in this action is reported in 37 Minn. 314,34 N. W. Rep. 38. After a new trial and a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff has appealed from an order refusing another new trial. The cause of action here asserted is trespass upon and injury to a strip of land 62 feet in width, consisting of the westerly 22 feet of several lots in Bottineau's second addition to Minneapolis, with the adjacent 40 feet, comprising that half of Main street upon which such lots abut. The street had not been opened to public travel, as is alleged, and the plaintiff had inclosed and was using it for private purposes. Upon the trial there was offered and received in evidence the record of a judgment of the circuit court of the United States in an action by this plaintiff against this defendant corporation, awarding to the plaintiff a recovery of $20 damages, with costs. That action had been commenced in the district court of the state, but was removed to the federal court. The cause of action appearing in the copy of the complaint in the circuit court was the entry of the defendant upon, and its wrongful possessionof, the westerly 22 feet of the plaintiff's lots, numbered and described as in the complaint in this action, except that they are there designated as being in “Bottinen's addition to Minneapolis.” A...