Rochette v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

Citation32 Minn. 201,20 N.W. 140
PartiesROCHETTE v CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
Decision Date12 June 1884
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from an order of district court, Ramsey county.

E. S. Chittenden, for appellant, Stephen Rochette.

Bigelow, Flandrau & Squires, for respondent, Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

MITCHELL, J.

The question in this case is whether the complaint states a cause of action. The facts alleged are that plaintiff is the owner of lots 49, 50, and 51, of Dailey's subdivision of block 2 of Stinson, Brown & Ramsey's addition to St. Paul, on which are situated two houses, one of which is occupied by himself and the other by his tenants; that these houses are so situated that, previous to the acts complained of, plaintiff's best, most convenient, and usual means access to and egress from his said houses was by way of Duke street on the west, and Grace street on the south, by and through which he was accustomed to reach Fort street, and his place of business in St. Paul, and that this means of access and egress were short and convenient, and greatly used by him; that the defendant has built and is operating a railroad immediately adjoining said real estate of plaintiff, and within three feet of his south line; that in building said road defendant excavated to the depth of seven feet across Duke street and in and upon Grace street, whereby defendant obstructed and interfered with and prevented the use and enjoyment of said streets by plaintiff, as he had been accustomed and was entitled to use and enjoy the same, and cut off and prevented, and rendered dangerous, his use of this means of access to and egress from his property, and compelled him to seek and use a much less convenient and accessible route, greatly to his loss and damage.

It will be observed that there is no allegation that any of plaintiff's property has been taken, or that the corpus of it has been in any way physically touched or disturbed. Neither is it alleged that the act of defendant in making this excavation on these streets is unlawful, nor that the part of the streets upon which it is done abuts plaintiff's premises; in fact, it is conceded that it is not. Nor is it alleged that the excavation has been improperly or negligently done. There is no claim that this excavation cuts off plaintiff from all means of access and egress to and from his premises. Simply that it cuts him off from the most convenient means, and compels him to resort to others which are less convenient. The injuries, therefore, which he suffers are not special to himself, but such as are sustained in common with the public, possibly greater in degree, but the same in kind. On these facts this case is not distinguishable in principle from Shaubut v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. 21 Minn. 502.

The plaintiff insists that chapter 53, Gen. Laws 1872, amending chapter 34, Gen. St., regarding the exercise of the right of eminent domain by corporations, so enlarges the scope of the statutes as to require such corporations to make compensation for property injuriously affected, although no part has been actually taken, and that, defendant not having done so, he is entitled to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • King v. Vicksburg Ry. & Light Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 19, 1906
    ...... (Texas), 11 S.W. 145; Proprietors, etc., v. Nashua,. etc., Railroad Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.), 385; Presbry. v. Railway, 103 Mass. 1; Rochette v. Railway. (Minn.), 20 N.W. 140; Rude v. St. Louis (Mo.), . 6 S.W. 257; Jordan v. Benwood, 42 W.Va. 312 (s.c.,. 26 S.E. 266; 36 L. R. A., ......
  • Canady v. Coeur d'Alene Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 23, 1911
    ......558, 42 N.W. 77, 4 L. R. A. 193;. Elizabethtown L. & B. S. R. Co. v. Catlettsburg Water. Co., 110 Ky. 175, 61 S.W. 47; Rochette v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., 32 Minn. 201, 20 N.W. 140;. Pennsylvania Co. v. Stanley, 10 Ind.App. 421, 37. N.E. 288, 38 N.E. 421; Ridgway v. ......
  • Austin v. Augusta T. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • August 2, 1899
    ......96); in Gilbert v. Railway Co., 13. Colo. 501, 22 P. 814 (where the constitution required payment. for damages); in Minnesota, in the Rochette Case, construing. the word "damages" (32 Minn. 201, 20 N.W. 140); in. Massachusetts, where the statute required payment for. "damage" (Presbrey v. ......
  • In re Hull
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • June 19, 1925
    ......M. & St. L. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 41, 11 N. W. 124; Aldrich v. Wetmore, 52 Minn. 164, 53 N. W. 1072; Rochette v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 201, 20 N. W. 140; Shero v. Carey, 35 Minn. 423, 29 N. W. 58; Gundlach v. Hamm, 62 Minn. 42, 64 N. W. 50; Wendt ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT