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

• Decision Date: 27 June 1895
• Citation: 63 N.W. 1104,61 Minn. 449
• Parties: WARD v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

61 Minn. 449

63 N.W. 1104

WARD

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 27, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The measure of damages in an action to recover for an injury to a perennial crop-in this case, growing grass-is the difference in the market value of the real property immediately before and its value immediately after the infliction of the injury, and, when ascertaining this difference, evidence that another crop of some character and value may be grown on the land the same growing period, and of the average yield of like crops, of the average market price, the ordinary expense of harvesting and marketing such crops, the condition of that particular crop before the injury, and any other fact existing at the time of the loss tending to show how and to what extent the injury decreased and diminished the value of the farm, may be considered. But evidence of matters occurring subsequently to the injury is not competent, overruling on this point Lommeland v. Railway Co., 29 N. W. 119, 35 Minn. 412.

Appeal from district court, Martin county; M. J. Severance, Judge.

Action by Albert L. Ward against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company to recover for the destruction of crops. From an order denying a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Andrew C. Dunn, for appellant.

T. J. Knox and H. H. Dunn, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

On October 9, 1893, the plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for an alleged negligent destruction by fire, only two days before, of certain trees and grass then standing and growing on his farm. The cause was brought on for trial in less than two months after the fire, and plaintiff had a verdict. The sole question before us relates to the proper measure of damages for the destruction of the grass. When making its rulings on the reception of evidence, and also when charging the jury, the trial court relied upon Lommeland v. Railway Co., 35 Minn. 412, 29 N. W. 119, which case was cited as authority in Byrne v. Railway Co., 38 Minn. 212, 36 N. W. 339. In that case it was laid down that in actions brought to recover damages for injuries to growing crops such damages are to be estimated as of the time of the injury, and the measure of damages is compensation for the value of the crops in the condition they are at that time. The correctness of the rule as then stated is not now questioned by appellant's counsel, but his position is that it was absolutely departed from and disregarded by what was afterwards said in that part of the opinion which was devoted to a consideration of the rulings of the trial court when receiving evidence from which the value of the crop at the time of its destruction might be ascertained. We must admit that this...