Wild Rice Lumber Co. v. Benson
| Decision Date | 03 March 1911 |
| Citation | 130 N.W. 1,114 Minn. 92 |
| Parties | WILD RICE LUMBER CO. v. BENSON et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Clearwater County; C. M. Stanton, Judge.
Action by the Wild Rice Lumber Company against Ed Benson and others. A demurrer to the answer was overruled, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
In an action to restrain and enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiff's right to possess and occupy a logging road over and across lands owned by defendants, and for damages for obstructing the same, defendants interposed as a counterclaim that they were the owners of the land and entitled to the possession thereof, and (1) that plaintiff wrongfully constructed its logging road thereon, to the injury of the premises, and (2) so negligently operated a locomotive upon the same, in hauling logs from the forest to market, that defendants' horses were frightened, and defendants disturbed in the peaceful possession of their property.
It is held that, in so far as the answer alleges and claims damages for injury to the land by the construction of the road, the counterclaim is ‘connected with the subject of the action,’ within the meaning of section 4131, Rev. Laws 1905, and properly pleaded as such, but that the damage suffered by the negligent operation of plaintiff's locomotive is not connected with the subject of the action, and the allegations thereof do not constitute a proper counterclaim.
The two elements of damage claimed by defendants were embodied in the same counterclaim, and inasmuch as the pleading is good in part, a general demurrer to the whole was properly overruled. Thomas Keefe (W. E. Rowe, of counsel), for appellant.
Wm. A. McGlennon, for respondents.
The complaint in this action alleges that in the year 1906 plaintiff purchased of the United States government large quantities of timber land situated in Clearwater county, this state; that at the time of said purchase the government was the owner of all land embraced within the township in which the land so purchased was located, and that in addition to selling and conveying to plaintiff said land the government granted and conveyed to plaintiff the right to construct and maintain such logging roads over its other land in said township as plaintiff might reasonably require for the purpose of conveying its timber to market; that in pursuance of this grant plaintiff constructed a certain logging road upon and across land then owned by the government, over which to convey and haul its logs to market; that it has maintained the road so constructed for the period of 13 years; that in the winter of 1910 defendants wrongfully and unlawfully obstructed and destroyed a part of said road, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $600. It also alleges that defendants threaten to continue their obstruction of said road and to interfere with plaintiff's use thereof, and will do so unless restrained by the court. The prayer of judgment is that defendant be restrained and enjoined from obstructing the road and from interfering with plaintiff's use thereof, and that it have judgment against defendants for $600 damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of their alleged wrongful conduct.
Defendants answered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First & Lumbermen's Nat. Bank v. Buchholz
...contains at least one good defense, the demurrer is bad. A. E. Johnson Co. v. White, 78 Minn. 48, 80 N.W. 838; Wild Rice Lumber Co. v. Benson, 114 Minn. 92, 130 N.W. 1; Brill v. Minnesota Mines, Inc., 200 Minn. 454, 274 N.W. 631, 112 A.L.R. 3. Our discussion, therefore, will be confined to ......
-
W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey
...a liberal construction. Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252, 2 N. W. 847;Hackett v. Kanne, 98 Minn. 240, 107 N. W. 1131; Wild Rice Lumber Co. v. Benson, 114 Minn. 92,113 N. W. 1. That a similar counterclaim may be interposed in replevin, under a statute substantially like ours, was held in Aultma......
-
Bauman v. Metzger
...could interpose a counterclaim to have the boundary line between his land and that of plaintiff determined. Wild Rice Lumber Co. v. Benson, 114 Minn. 92, 130 N. W. 1, was an action to enjoin defendant from interfering with plaintiff's logging railroad. Defendant interposed two counterclaims......
-
W. W. Kimball Co. v. Massey
... ... 252, 2 N.W. 847; Hackett v. Kanne, 98 Minn ... 240, 107 N.W. 1131; Wild Rice Lumber Co. v. Benson, ... 114 Minn. 92, [126 Minn. 463] 130 N.W. 1 ... ...