Parrott v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall District Count.— How. 0. Caswell, Judge. Action for damages occasioned Wy tbe removal of earth beyond the line of defendant’s right of way. Trial resulted in a judgment against defendant, from which it appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
The defendant’s track and right of way extends through the plaintiff’s 160 acres of land diagonally. In 1902 the company contracted with one Stoddart to remove •the earth from certain cuts, including that in the portion of the right of way mentioned, and fill the approaches of a bridge near Melbourne. The complaint is that in doing so the earth was taken on each side of the track beyond the line between plaintiff’s land and the right of way, “ to a distance of 10 feet, . . . to a depth of . . . averaging 12 feet, . . . about a distance of 225 rods,” leaving the adjacent land without support…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Humpton v. P. F. Unterkircher & SonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Richardson v. City of Webster CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Overhouser v. American Cereal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Lough v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Rowe v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1897
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Reynolds v. Skelly Oil Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1939
- Beal v. Champion Fiber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- In Re Estate of AmondSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Heintz v. Iowa Packing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1936
- Farmers Mercantile Co. v. Farmers Ins.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.