Jungblum v. Minneapolis, New Ulm & Southwestern Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Nicollet county, Webber, J., denying a motion for a new trial after a verdict of $300 for plaintiff. The common-law rule as to surface water prevails in this state. The owner of the lower land may, with all due care not to injure his neighbor, in the use and improvement of his own land, obstruct the natural flow of water and turn it back upon the land of others without incurring liability.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Nicollet county, Webber, J., denying a motion for a new trial after a verdict of $300 for plaintiff. The common-law rule as to surface water prevails in this state. The owner of the lower land may, with all due care not to injure his neighbor, in the use and improvement of his own land, obstruct the natural flow of water and turn it back upon the land of others without incurring liability. Rowe v. St. Paul, 41 Minn. 384; The Jordan Case, 42 Minn. 172; O’Brien v. City, 25 Minn. 331; Brown v. Winona, 53 Minn. 259; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59…
1Opinion of the Court
START, C. T.
This action was brought to recover damages for the overflowing of the plaintiff’s land by reason of the improper construction of the defendant’s roadbed. Verdict for the plaintiff for $330, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The assignments of error present three general questions for our decision: First. Is the evidence sufficient to establish any liability on the part of the defendant for obstructing a natural water course, or for unreasonably and unnecessarily obstructing and accumulating surface water, and thereby casting it upon the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Byrne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad v. HarlinNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- McCarty v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Harvey v. Mason City & Fort Dodge RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. GrovesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Soules v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Oftelie v. Town of HammondSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.