Coyne v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of tbe district court for Anoka county, Tarbox, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $150.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Plaintiff had a verdict in an action brought to recover for injuries claimed to have been caused by reason of defendant’s construction and maintenance of certain piling, piers, and booms in the Mississippi river, above plaintiff’s farm, whereby huge quantities of logs and ice were accumulated and held back in the spring of 1897, and then, because of the breaking away of the piling, piers, and booms, alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligent management and operation thereof, suddenly precipitated down the river and upon plaintiff’s farm, by reason of which soil and trees along the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lansing v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Emerson v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1833
- Weaver v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Field v. Apple River Log Driving Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- White River Log & Booming Co. v. NelsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hot Springs Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. RevercombSupreme Court of Virginia · 1906
- Boutwell v. Champlain Realty Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Lund v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1903
- Heiberg v. Wild Rice Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Mandery v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.