Moore v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Montgomery District Court. — Hon. H. E. Deemeb, Judge. This is an action in equity, in which the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant from obstructing the natural flow of the West Nodaway river, by which proposed obstruction it is claimed that the lands of the plaintiff will be inundated and overflown by the waters of said stream. There was a trial to the court, and a decree for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtRothrock, J.
— I. The evidence in the case discloses the following state of facts : The plaintiff has been for many years the owner of a farm, which is for the most part situated on bottom-land on the east side of the Nodaway river. The defendant’s line of railroad was built through Montgomery county in 1869, and it crosses said river about one mile west of the village of Villisca. When the road was constructed it spanned the river by a wooden Howe truss bridge, which was one hundred and thirty-seven feet in length, and rested on piling driven in the ground. At each end of the bridge there was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sullens v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Bushnell v. Robeson & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1883
3Cited by18 opinions
- Harvey v. Mason City & Fort Dodge RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- O'Connell v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Keck v. VenghauseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Fordham v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
- Hume v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.