Close v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R'y Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Blade HawJp District Court. Action in equity for specific performance, and for other relief, and for general relief. The court refused to decree a specific performance, .but allowed the plaintiffs certain damages, and rendered judgment therefor against both defendants, The Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R’y Co., and The Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Minn. R’y Co. The B., C. R. & N. R’y Co. appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
The plaintiffs, Cicero Close and Jeremiah Gray, are the owners of certain land in Black Hawk county, which land is crossed by the railroad now owned and operated by the defendant, The B., C. R. & N. R’y Co., but formerly by the defendant, The B., C. R. & M. R’y Co. Soon after the construction of the road, the plaintiffs became desirous of securing the location of a depot on or near their land. With this view, they entered into negotiations with the original company, then owning and operating the road. They had already conveyed a right of way, and in regard to that no question appears to have…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Blanchard v. Detroit, Lansing & Lake Michigan RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Varner v. St. L. & C. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Jackson ex dem. v. FlorenceNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sanitary District of Chicago v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1917
- Peden v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Murtha v. O'HeronAppellate Court of Illinois · 1913
- Gardner v. KiburzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Griswold v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.