Brown v. Winona & Southwestern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Winona & Southwestern Railway Company, from an order of the District Court of Winona County, Chas. M. Start, J., made August é, 1892, denying its motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Daniel Brown, owned lot seven (7) in block two (2) in the Village of Utica, and with his family occupied the dwelling house thereon. It fronted north onto a street sixty-six feet wide running east and west.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Winona & Southwestern Railway Company, from an order of the District Court of Winona County, Chas. M. Start, J., made August é, 1892, denying its motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Daniel Brown, owned lot seven (7) in block two (2) in the Village of Utica, and with his family occupied the dwelling house thereon. It fronted north onto a street sixty-six feet wide running east and west. Across the street to the north, and parallel with it, is the roadbed and track of the railroad, elevated •several feet upon an embankment built for the purpose. Through this embankment…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
The defendant constructed its road, running from east to west, across block 2, in the village of Utica, in this state. For the purpose of laying its track, it raised an embankment across the block, taking the earth from along each side, thus making on each side what is called a “borrow pit.” The two pits were connected by a culvert through the embankment. .On the north side the surface of the ground slopes for a considerable distance towards this part of the embankment from the north and northeast and northwest, so that the surface waters from rains and melting snows flow towards that part of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- O'Brien v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- Pye v. City of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Hogenson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Rowe v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Temple v. NorrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Morrissey v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
- Oftelie v. Town of HammondSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Skinner v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Franklin v. DurgeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1901
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.