St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-12-10
Several Interesting Cases
Handed Down From the
Highest Court.
The United States Court Get
ting Down to December
Business.
Run Of Regular Litigation in
the Tribunals Of the i
County.
Comptroller Roche Ready for
a Fight in the Mandamus
Case.

Farmers and railroad men will be in
terested in the decision rendered yes
terday by the supreme court in the ap-
peaI-Edgar Stacey, respondent, VS..
Winona 81 st. Peter Railroad Company,
appellant. The case was one to secure
damages for the killing of some cattle
OH the defendants railroad. 1t was
during heavy storm; snow had fallen
to great depth; cattle could make
their way almost anywhere. the fences
proving little or no use. Defendants
railway had been bl0ckaded several
times during the season, and only few
days prior to the accident had been
closed for nearly one week. A large
number of men with engines and SNOW
pillow were engaged constantly i'll re-
moving the drifting snow from the
rails, and so much had been thrown out
that it was piled up on either side of
the track until there was barely room
for the trains To pass. The cattle wan
Gcred on to the track and were killed.
The lower court rendered yer iict for
the plaintiff; this is reversed by the SUI
pTeme court, up n two grounds:
''First-Applying the rule in regard to
the removal of show and ice from cat
tie wards, laid down in Blais VS.. Ry.
Co.. "a Mimi, 81. to the undISputed
facts i'm the case, it is held, that the
trial court erred in refusing to charge
the jury as requested, that the defend
ant was not Negligent i'm this respect as
to guard over which plaintiffs cattle
passed on to its railway track.
"Seeond-'Ehe cattle were running at
large in violation of the law. Held,
that as the cattle guard was not in an
unlawful or forbidden condition, under
the circumstances, and as the cattle
were at large contrary to law, treSpaSS-
ers upon the defendants right of way,
the defendants servants, engaged in
operating its trains. were not bound to
anticipate such trespassing by looking
ahead. or by managing tram with ref
erence to such contingency"
Isaac Jordan. appellant, VS.. ST. Paul. Mime
apolis & Manitoba Railroad company, re-
spOndent. Judgment affirmed. Gillian,
c.
When there is a general verdict and
also special findings of fact, il is not
proper practice to move to set aside one
of the findings of fact, as contrary to
the evidence, without asking tor new.
ticular question of fact, especially if
setting it aside would require a judy
ment different from what would be re-
Quired if it were allowed to stand. The
rule that land owner may improve his
own land for the purpose for which
similar land is ordinarily used, and may
do what is necessary for that purpose,
as to build upon it, or to raise or lower
its surface; even though the effect may
be to prevent surface water, which be-
fore flowed upon it, coming upon it, Or
to draw from adjoining land surface,
water over land ON which it would not
otherwise 90. applied to a railroad com-E
pany constructing its road across a
prairie country.
Theresa AdoIph. respondent VS.. Minneapo-
lis & Pacific Raiiwas@ Company, appellant.
Order affirmed. Gilfillan. G.. j.
Where a railroad company, under Sec
ton 33 and the following sections of
chapter 81, General Statutes of 1878,
when sued in ejectment for land taken
by 1t for its use without making COIN
penSation, i'm its answer asks to have
the compensation for the taking aScer-
tanned. and for Judgment emitting it to
the land on paying the amount aScpr-
tanned. the question of such amount
must be tried in the same manner and
upon the same kind of evidence as in an
original proceeding instituted by it for
the purpose.
Clement Vandall. respondent, VS.. Catherine
81. Martin ct al, appellants. Order affirmed.
Collins, J..
Eva e. johnson, respondent, vs.. A. F. ia
cobs ct al appellants. Order reversed.
Evidence held insufficient to sustain the
verdict. Gilfllau, e. j.
Hannah Baker, respondent. VS.. Mary Branch,
appellant. Judgment affirmed Collins. j.
CHARLES E. Adamson, appellant, VS.. A. E.
Horton, respondent Order reversed. Gill
fllan, G. j.