Thelan v. Farmer

Decision Date18 December 1886
Citation36 Minn. 225
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesBENJAMIN THELAN and others <I>vs.</I> PAMELIA FARMER and others.

Searles, Ewing & Gail, for appellants.

Clapp & Macartney, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

This is an action for an injunction to restrain the defendants, the Farmers, from constructing in Union place, a public street in the city of Stillwater, a hay-scale, which the complaint alleges will, if constructed, be a public nuisance. The court below rendered judgment for the defendants on the pleadings, on the ground, as we understand, that the complaint does not show that plaintiffs will sustain any injury from the contemplated nuisance, special to themselves. The rule is well settled, and has in numerous cases been acted upon by this court, that no action can be maintained by a private person for an interference with or obstruction to a public highway unless he is thereby specially injured, and in a way not common to himself and the public at large, and that it is not enough that the injury to him is greater in degree than the public generally suffer, if it be the same in kind. When an injury is special and distinct from that of the general public is sometimes difficult to determine. Some cases are very near the line. From the statements of the pleadings, and the situation of the premises as shown by a plat assumed and conceded on the argument to be correct, we find this to be one of those cases. For that reason we confine the scope of our decision to the precise facts of the case, which are these: Union place is a public street 40 feet in width. The defendants, the Farmers, owning lot 2 in block 25 of the town of Stillwater, which fronts on Union place, are about to construct, under permission of the city, a hay-scale in the street immediately in front of their lot, which, when constructed, will extend into the street a distance of 15½ feet from their lot line. Plaintiff Edward L. Hersey is the owner of lot 1 in said block, and lots 1 and 2 in block 26. The plaintiff Thelan owns lot 3 and the N. ½ of lot 4 in block 26. The plaintiff Mower owns lot 3 in block 25. All the lots front on Union place, the two blocks being opposite each other; lot 2, and a part of lot 3, in block 26, being opposite lot 2, in block 25. The allegations as to injury in the complaint are that the defendants "will thereby obstruct said public way, known...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Aldrich v. Wetmore
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1893
    ...Co., 33 Minn. 365; Swanson v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 42 Minn. 532; Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 41; Thelan v. Farmer, 36 Minn. 225; Adams Chicago, B. & N. R. Co., 39 Minn. 286. The alleged misconduct of the three jurors was brought to the attention of the court o......
  • Thelen v. Farmer
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1886
  • Aldrich v. Wetmore
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1893
    ...viz. to show that the complainants did not allege any special damage. Shero v. Carey, 35 Minn. 423, (29 N. W. Rep. 58,) and Thelan v. Farmer, 36 Minn. 225, (30 N. W. Rep. 670,) both went off on the point that the complaints did not contain any sufficient averments of special damage; the lat......
  • Aldrich v. City of Minneapolis
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1893
    ...purpose, viz. to show that the complaints did not allege any special damage. Shero v. Carey, 35 Minn. 423,29 N. W. Rep. 58, and Thelan v. Farmer, 36 Minn. 225,30 N. W. Rep. 670, both went off on the point that the complaints did not contain any sufficient averments of special damage; the la......

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