The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-11-20
ROAD IS HELD LIABLE
For Backing the Water up on
Jungblum's Lands.

| Five decisions were handed down by
| the supreme court yesterday, Chief
| Justice Start signing the opinions. The
| decision Of most general interest is that
modifying the order of the lower court
| in the suit Of John Jungblum against
| the Minneapolis, New Ulm & South
western railroad. The road, by build
| ing an embankment across a surface
water stream, caused it to flood jung
| blum's property. The court holds that
Jungblum is entitled to damages.
| The syllabi of the decisions follow:
| John Jungblum respondent, vs. Minneapolis,
New Ulm & Southwestern Railroad Com
| pany appellant
| l. Held, that the evidence is sufficient
to sustain finding by the jury to the eff
| feet that the defendant unnecessarily and
| professionally DISTRACTED a natural channel
| where surface water was accustomed to flow,
| and thereby flooded the plaintiffs land.
| 2. The defendant acquired It's right of way
! over plaintiffs land by deed, which in
ages by reason of the location, grade,
| struction maintenance and operation of a
| railway over and upon the premises conveyed.
| Held, that the deed only released the de-
| PENDANT from all damages resulting from a
| reasonable and non-negligent construction of
| railway over and upon the premises con-
veyed:
9. The plaintiffs land was and is flooded
| by the negligent construction of the defen-
dant's roadbed across a natural channel for
| surface water without culvert therein to
| let such water pass off in it's accustomed
| course Held, that the injury is not per-
manent in its nature, and the measure of
| damages is the diminution in the rental value
| of this land by reason of the injury COM
puted to the commencement of the action.
| Order modified. Start, Z. j.
| Otto Johnson and Charles Johnson, co-partners
Johnson Bros, respondents, vs.. Frank
1. Salter ct al, defendants; Frank 1. Sal
ter, appellant.
l. The defendant as owner of three con-
tiguous lots, containing in all less than one
| plaintiffs to furnish materials and erect, for
| him. two houses, one each of two of the
lots, for a gross sum for both, with the
| right at his election, which he exercised,
of adding to the contract another house to be
erected on the third lot, at the same price
| pro rata as stipulated for the other two. All
| three of the houses were to be constructed Of
the same materials and were to be completed
within the same time. The plaintiffs erect
| ed the three houses pursuant to the contract.
Held. constituting General Statutes 1884, sec
| ton 6235, that it was not necessary in order
| to perfect their lien for the plaintiffs to file
separate lien upon each house, or to appor-
| ton the amount of their entire lien between
| the several houses. but that the balance due
| on the contract might be included in one lien
| statement and lien therefor claimed on all
| of the lots.
2. The three lots were correctly described
| and a lien claimed thereon in the lien state
ment filed, but it was not stated therein in
| express terms that lien was claimed upon
| the buildings so erected upon the lots. Held,
| that the description sufficient to include
both the lots and buildings. Order affirmed.
State of Minnesota ex rel. Mary Hanke. re-
| snondent VS. Matthew ]. Myers, appellant.
| Held that the evidence in this case was
| sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial
| courrs to the effect that the relator recoy-
| cred Judgment in Justice court and that the
| Justice entered the same in his docket. Or
| der affirmed. -oIar'' - d
Evan ]. Tvedt, respondent, VS.. Henry W.
|
/ The defendant was the owner of ware
| house which he built and equipped with
| freight elevator, operated by water pres
sure, for use in such building. At one end
! of the elevator shaft was wheel hole or
| opening in the floor through which ran an
endless cable over movable pulley Ior at tne
| This wheel hole including the pulley and
! cable were part of the elevator and OF the
| building thereof. They were dangerous II not
| guarded, but the defendant never fenced or
| protected them, although it was practical to
| do so. He leased the building for ware
| house and the lessee continued to use 1t
with the wheel hole unguarded. The plain
| tiff an employe of the lessee, was injured
| because the wheel hole was not protected
| Held, constituting sec. 8, chapter T. Laws
| 1893 relating to the protection of employees,
| that the initial duty rested upon the defend
| ant to guard the wheel hole before using the
building himself leasing 1t to another for
use as a warehouse, and that he was liable
| to the plaintiff, who injured by his
| neglect to comply with the statute.
| 2, Held that the evidence does not snow,
as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was
| guilty of contributory negligence.
! g. Held that the trial court did not err in
| receiving evidence as to the customary way
| of sending the elevator up and down in the
| warehouse in question nor in receiving evil
dence as to the cost of guarding the wheel
| hole, nor in modifying certain requests Of the
defendant for instructions to the jury. Order
| affirmed. Start, c. ].
Annie NJ. Beede, appellant, VS.. Ezra F: Pa
body ct al, Defendants; Ezra F. Pabody,
respondent.
1. S. conveyed by deed, which was record
| ed certain land to P. The transaction was q
! mortgage to secure P for endorsing the note
! of S. The latter sold the land to the plain
| tiff making to her fraudulent representations.
p who had no knowledge of the representa-
| lions, at the request of S. conveyed the land
| to plaintiff and received back mortgage,
which he held in lieu of his original security.
| P never authorized S. to sell the land for
| him s. did not assume to represent him in
| making the sale, and the plaintiff had no
| knowledge that the title stood in the name
| of P. until after she had agreed to buy the
| land. The mortgage was paid to S. and at
| his request P. executed release of It, but
| he never received any part of the mortgage
or of the purchase price of the land. The
plaintiff brought this action against P. for
| damages sustained by the fraudulent rep
reservations made by s.. Held: That P.
| was not estopped from showing that he was
| in fact a mortgage and that S., in making
/ l. g..