Hunter v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Court. — Hon, S. H. Fairall, Judge. Action to recover damages upon three alleged causes, namely: For removing the plank of, and making too narrow, and for failing to maintain, what is designated in the testimony as the “East Crossing” on the plaintiff’s farm; for tearing up and destroying what is known as the “West Crossing” on said farm; for removing a five-board fence inclosing the right of way of defendant’s road through the plaintiff’s farm,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson District Court. — Hon, S. H. Fairall, Judge. Action to recover damages upon three alleged causes, namely: For removing the plank of, and making too narrow, and for failing to maintain, what is designated in the testimony as the “East Crossing” on the plaintiff’s farm; for tearing up and destroying what is known as the “West Crossing” on said farm; for removing a five-board fence inclosing the right of way of defendant’s road through the plaintiff’s farm, and for failing to maintain the same. This case was submitted upon the first two causes, the latter being withdrawn by…
1Opinion of the CourtG-iveN, J.
I. The appellant’s first contention is that the court erred in not submitting his claim for 1. Injury to Property: damages: statute op limitations. damages by reason of the removal of the five-board fence. This refusal was no doubt based upon the conclusion that the plaintiff’s claim as to the fence was barred. To determine the correctness of this conclusion, we must have in mind just what the plaintiff’s cause of action is, and then inquire when it accrued. On the former appeal of this case (76 Iowa, 490), the court held as follows: “We are of the opinion that, while the defendant was under…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hunter v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Darnall v. DaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1949
- Eckington & Soldiers' Home Railway Co. v. McDevittCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1901