Case ID: minn_33/html/0365-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VandeRbüRgh, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. K. Barnum and others vs. Minnesota Transfer Railway Company.
    May 12, 1885.
    Railroad Crossing — Injury to Owners of Land not Abutting on Railroad. — Plaintiffs, who own lands abutting on a public street, are not entitled to an action for a nuisance caused by the obstruction of another portion of the same street, not on or opposite their lands, and by which access to such lands is not cut of. Bhaubut v. Bt. Paul & B. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 502.
    The plaintiffs in this action are the owners of land fronting and abutting upon a public highway, commonly known as a territorial road, running from St. Paul to Minneapolis. The defendant has excavated a cut six feet deep and six hundred feet in width across this highway a short distance from the land of plaintiffs.
    Upon these facts, the plaintiffs bring this action in the district court for Ramsey county, for themselves and all others similarly situated who may choose to come in and join as plaintiffs, to require the defendant to remove the obstructions from the highway and restore the same to a safe condition, and to enjoin the defendant from continuing the obstructions. They allege in their complaint that the value of their land is greatly diminished, and that it is difficult of access, and impossible of access except in one direction, by reason of the acts of defendant.
    Plaintiffs appeal from an order by Simons, J., sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
    
      J. M. Oilman and M. D. Munn, for appellants,,
    cited Wood on Nuisance, §§ 648, 680, 790; High on Injunctions, § 818; Brown v. Watson, 47 Me. 161; Wilder v. Be Cou, 26 Minn. 10; Corning v. Lowerre, 6 John. Ch. 439; Milhau y. Sharp, 27 N. T. 611; Enos v. Hamilton, 27 Wis. 256; Pettibone v. Hamilton, 40 Wis. 402; Wood-ruff y. North Bloomfield, etc., Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 753; Shipley v. Capíes, 17 Md. 179; Webber v. Gage, 39 N. H. 182; Ross v. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq. 294.
    
      R. B. Qalusha, W. P. Clough, and J. Kling, for respondent,
    cited 
      Shaubut v. St. Paul é S. C. B. Co., 21 Minn. 502, and Bochette v. Chic., M. é St. P. By. Co., 32 Minn. 201.
   VandeRbüRgh, J.

We are unable to distinguish this ease from Shaubut v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 502. The obstruction complained of is not on or abutting the lands of any of the plaintiffs; neither is access thereto cut off by such obstruction. The inconvenience arising from the occupation and use of the street by the defendants may be experienced in a greater degree by occupants of these lands than by others whose lands are more remotely situated on the same highway, or others communicating with it, but it is the same in kind. It would be difficult to draw the line between those who are entitled to damages and those who are not, so as to enable the court to distinguish the alleged injury to these plaintiffs from that which must be held common to the public. The remedy must be one prosecuted on behalf of the public, and the order sustaining the demurrer should be affirmed. 
      
       Berry, J., was absent and took no partin this case.