Scott v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
| Decision Date | 12 December 1889 |
| Citation | 43 N.W. 966,42 Minn. 179 |
| Parties | Thomas Scott v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action of ejectment, for damages for withholding possession, and for value of use and occupation, brought in the district court for Kandiyohi county. Defendant in its answer admitted that it had entered on the strip of land in question, and had built its railway thereon, and had made plaintiff no compensation; but alleged that its entry was with plaintiff's consent, and that "it is ready and willing to pay such compensation on having the same assessed and ascertained by the jury that shall be impanelled to try the above-entitled action: provided, however, that the plaintiff, upon the trial, shall establish his right to recover the land in question." The answer denied knowledge or information as to plaintiff's ownership, and put in issue the value and damages alleged in the complaint.
The verdict of the jury was for plaintiff, as follows:
The bill of costs, as noticed for taxation, included this item "Attorney's fees allowed by order of the court $ 75." The clerk taxed the costs and entered judgment "that plaintiff have and recover from the defendant the land described in the complaint, or, in lieu thereof, the compensation fixed by the jury, to wit, the sum of six hundred and twenty dollars, with two and 77-100 dollars interest thereon, and the costs and disbursements of this action, which are taxed and allowed at the sum of $ 51.55 and the further sum of seventy-five dollars, reasonable attorney's fees, fixed by order of the court -- amounting in all to the sum of $ 749.32." The appeal is from this judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
J. D Springer and Reynolds & Stewart, for appellant.
Knappen & Wright, for respondent.
The error assigned is, in substance, that the judgment appealed from is unauthorized by the verdict; that in fact the verdict is insufficient to authorize any judgment. The judgment was entered on the verdict by the clerk, on motion of plaintiff's attorneys without any order or direction of the court. No motion for a new trial, nor any application to have the judgment corrected or vacated, was ever made to the court below. From Eaton v. Caldwell, 3 Minn....
To continue reading
Request your trial