McDonough v. Russell-Miller Milling Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court
From a judgment of the district court of Burleigh County, Nuessle, Special Judge, plaintiff appeals. After a judgment has been rendered in an action and while such judgment remains in full force and effect, a court does not possess the power to dismiss the action.
Read the full summary
From a judgment of the district court of Burleigh County, Nuessle, Special Judge, plaintiff appeals. After a judgment has been rendered in an action and while such judgment remains in full force and effect, a court does not possess the power to dismiss the action. Todd v. Todd, 7 S. D. 174, 63 N. W. 777; Barnett v. Will (N. D.) 166 N. W. 511. “The theory of the law is that the infliction of past damages will cause the abatement of a temporary nuisance; if it does not successive actions .may be maintained.” B. Co. v. Pattison, 67 111. App. 351; 11 Dec. Dig. (Judgment) § 606; Bowers v. Boom Co.…
1DissentGrace, J.
This is an action to recover damages for the pollution of Heart river, which flows through plaintiff’s land, from which until 1912 or 1913 he cut and removed ice for market, both wholesale and retail. The claims for damages are in the following amounts: $7,500 for the pollution of ice field; $3,000 for reduced value of pasture on plaintiff’s farm; $2,000 for interfering with the enjoyment of his dwelling and premises, by reason of the bad odors arising from the river; $5,000 damages for preventing the sale of certain lots, and $5,000 exemplary damages.
The case was tried to the court and a…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- City of Georgetown v. THE ALEXANDRIA CANAL COMPANY, &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Bohan v. Port Jervis Gaslight Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Bowman v. HumphreySupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. MaloneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.