Lommeland v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Becke| county, where the action was tried before Stearns, J., and a jury.
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
This action is brought to recover damages fc| injuries to plaintiff’s growing crops by the flowing of his land, allege to have been caused by ditches dug by defendant to drain its roaj *413bed. In such cases the general rule appears to be that the damages are to be estimated'as of the time of the injury, and the measure of damages is compensation for the value of the crops in the condition <key are in at that time. 3 Suth. Dam. 381, 382; Richardson v. Northrup, 66 Barb. 85; Folsom v. Apple River, etc., Co., 41 Wis. 602, 609. In applying this rule a considerable latitude of inquiry is per-nissible…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. JarvisMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Goebel v. HoughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Whitbeck v. New York Central Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Folsom v. Apple River Log-Driving Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. v. PrinceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Railway Co. v. YarboroughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Black v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Pacific Livestock Co. v. MurrayOregon Supreme Court · 1904
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.