Noe v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marion District Court. — Hon. O. B. Ayres, Judge. Action at law to recover damages to certain lands by reason of back-water and . overflow caused, as it is alleged, by embankments and an insufficient passageway for the water of the South river, and by making certain changes in the channel of said stream. There was a trial ,by jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtRothrock, J.
— In the year 1879 the defendant constructed its railroad from Albia to Des Moines via Knoxville,. It was necessary to build the road across South river, a considerable stream, which flows from the south in a northward direction, and empties into the Des Moines river at a point about three-fourths of a mile from the railroad. South river bottom is about two miles wide, and when the road was built a bridge was erected over South river, and trestle-work wa's constructed for some distance on each side of the main channel of the stream. There were two side channels to the stream, through which…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sullens v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Moore v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
3Cited by12 opinions
- Harvey v. Mason City & Fort Dodge RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Keck v. VenghauseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Houghtaling v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Hume v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Central, Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.