The Railway and Engineering Review. Defendant concludes that, by the greater fire referred to, the court meant the Kettle river fire for which defendant may have been responsible. Loading... Unsubscribe from Minnesota Gravel Road.? Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Right v. Breen890 A.2d 1287 (Conn. 2006). It was protracted and severe. The complaint alleged, that early in August, 1918, sparks from one of defendant's locomotive engines set a fire on or near the right of way, and that this fire spread until it finally reached plaintiff's land, where it destroyed some of his property. The Minneapolis, Sault Ste. 3: Congress International 1 . $6.41 + $3.77 shipping . Marie Railway179 N.W. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Company. Page 151. The provisions of the so-called Transportation Act of February 28, 1920, indicate pretty clearly that Congress did not intend, by section 10 of the Control Act, to limit the right to sue the director general to such causes of action as arise from his operation of the railroads as common carriers. The amendment did not introduce an entirely new cause of action. Marie Railway, the Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railway, the Spokane International Railway, Northern Alberta Railways and connections by Poor's Publishing Company ( ) Construction dates for rail lines of Soo Line Railroad Company by Soo Line Railroad Company ( ) Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway … This request was denied. Fent v. Ry. 224 F.2d. Our attention is invited to a number of cases holding that if a fire has been spread beyond its natural limits by an unusual or extraordinary wind, carrying it to a place that would have been safe except for the wind, the person who set the fire is not liable because he could not reasonably have anticipated a wind of such a nature. The fire or fires which destroyed plaintiff's property had been burning a long time. Neither the drought nor the wind would or could have destroyed plaintiff's property without the fire. Even if the law had theretofore been otherwise stated, it has been held that it is permissible for a judge to change his mind during the trial of a case. The cause of action remained the same — the wrongful destruction of plaintiff's property by a fire or fires started by defendant. sister projects: Wikidata item. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Hence, if it can be said that an extraordinary wind coupled with an unusual drought were proximate causes of the injury, still the fire was a material concurring cause, without which there would have been no damage to plaintiff, and defendant is liable under the established rules of law. Home. Proper exception was taken to the Sunday instructions to the jury. 1947) Negligence: The Scope Of Risk Or 'Proximate Cause' Requirement Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers Contract … Cancel Unsubscribe. The jury were left in doubt as to defendant's responsibility if the Kettle river fire "played an important part of any consolidation of fires between it" and the west and northwest fires. To meet an issue tendered by the answer and supported by defendant's proof, plaintiff was properly allowed to offer evidence tending to show that these fires were set by defendant's engines. Internet Archive BookReader Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway (D.C. Cir. Anderson v. Minneapolis, st.paul and sault ste. Court: SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN : Citation; Date: 98 Wis. 624; 74 N.W.  Another consideration is the manner in which evidence, to which an amendment relates, came into the case. Co. 143 Minn. 74, 172 N. W. 918, 4 L.R.A. In making his motion, plaintiff's counsel stated that it was his position that there was no evidence tending to show that any other fire than the bog fire, or fires set by defendant in the vicinity of Kettle river, destroyed plaintiff's property. The appeal is from an order denying a motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Petition / JOHN M AHERNE / 1955 / 426 / 350 U.S. 900 / 76 S.Ct. Bankers' Mutual Casualty Company v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Company by Melville Fuller Syllabus. Page 432. The evidence received was admissible. Thank you. Marie Railway Company (M.St.P.&S.S.M.) The consolidated company acquired 737 miles of roadway. Jump to navigation Jump to search. It's no secret that the American Bar Association is not fond of onl... Anderson v. Minneapolis, st.paul and sault ste. Exch. The evidence showed that a fire, when sufficiently extensive, will create air currents as the heated air rises and cooler air rushes in to take its place. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 457, 67 Am. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Marie Railway Co. (1920) US Tort Law. Co. 144 Minn. 398, 175 N. W. 687; and Ringquist v. Duluth, M. & N. Ry. McEvers, Justice. Clayton J. 1915C, 1214. 1925) Map of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. If this should happen, all tickets will be refunded 100%. 726. The supreme court of Idaho says the opinion is logical and well reasoned, but the discussion is in a large measure theoretical and academic. October 12, 1886, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Help Support This Site: Please Donate Your Old Notes and Outlines! Marie (Soo Line) depot at Eden Valley, Minnesota. A steam locomotive acquired from the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Circa 1900-1950. Each of the parties then moved for a directed verdict. Marie railway (1920), © 2010 - 2020 lawschoolcasebriefs.net. & Red., Negligence, § 39; 22 R. C. L. 131. We haven't found any reviews in the usual places. They are also of doubtful application in view of our statute (G. S. 1913, § 4426), which creates liability irrespective of weather conditions, virtually makes railroad companies insurers against damage caused by fires set by their engines, Babcock v. Canadian Northern Ry. Co. supra, page 240, 178 N. W. 608; Chicago & N. W. Ry. The first meeting to discuss the possibility of such a line was held February 4, 1913 at Winans Hall in Harmon Township. 509, 110 Am. The Ringquist case, adhering to the views expressed in Palyo v. Northern Pacific Ry. 21. No. not exculpate the ﬁ rst party, unless he can show that his negligence was not a material element in causing the injury. § 7696. Railway Review, Incorporated, 1905 - Railroads. Marie Railway Co. #1003 [09/1944] Corp. Sale: Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. 9 No. Affirmed. The statement of plaintiff's counsel was improper. Image: ‘Train Painting’ by William Wray. Court Documents. Cas. 2 Dunnell, Minn. St. 1918, § 3115¾j) does not authorize an action against him, because it is in effect a suit against the United States authorized by the act only to enforce common-carrier liabilities, cannot be sustained. Page 876. in Err., v. THOMAS DOUGHTY. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. $24.79 + $3.79 shipping . If a fire set by the engine of one railroad company unites with a fire set by the engine of another company, there is joint and several liability, even though either fire  would have destroyed plaintiff's property. In instructing the jury, the court said in part: "Plaintiff claims that if there was any fire coming from the west or the northwest of the bog fire, that burned over plaintiff's property, that that fire or fires were set by the defendant's engines, and that defendant is responsible for such fires and the result thereof. Rep. 567; Johnson v. Northwestern Tel. 208 U.S. 251. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 700, Ann. St. 830. Co. 58 Minn. 104, 59 N. W. 978, leads to the conclusion that, regardless of the statute, there would be liability in such a case. Both motions were denied. Co. 145 Minn. 147, 176 N. W. 344. Co. 79 Wis. 140, 47 N. W. 1123, 11 L.R.A. Page 717. Please select a coach and the amount of tickets you would like to purchase. 1891 Judge Thompson in his work on Negligence, Vol. In 1888, the Minneapolis & Pacific Railway and three other affiliated lines were consolidated into one single corporation, the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Contents. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL, & SAULT STE. During the afternoon of the following Sunday the jury returned into court and asked whether the defendant would be liable if they should find that one of defendant's engines set a fire west of Kettle river and that on October 12 this fire was of sufficient magnitude to play an important part in any consolidation of fires that may have occurred between it and other fires coming from the west and northwest, and the consolidated fires passed  over plaintiff's land and did the damage. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Railway Company v. Doughty by Joseph McKenna Syllabus. We are of the opinion that the law was correctly stated in the Sunday instructions, assuming that by pleadings or voluntary litigation of the issue to which it was directed, the question was in the case. "If the plaintiff was burned out by some fire other than the bog fire, which other fire was not set by one of the defendant's engines, then, of course, the defendant is not liable. The case was tried before Dancer, J., who at the close of the evidence denied defendants' separate motions for directed verdicts and plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on the question of liability, and a jury which returned a verdict for $2,162.83. We are of the opinion that the rule does not apply to the facts in this case. Moore v. Townsend, 76 Minn. 64, 78 N. W. 880; Bibb B. C. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Opinion of the Court. Soo — [so͞o] [alteration of Sault] region in N Mich. & S Ontario, Canada, at the St. Marys Falls Canals, including the city of Sault Ste. Ct. 435, 63 L. ed. Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? The precise situation covered by the Sunday instructions may not have been in the mind of the court when the charge was given. JACOB ANDERSON v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. Co. 121 Minn. 357, 141 N. W. 491, 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Railway Company v. Doughty Argued: December 17, 1907. Marie Railway Case Brief - Rule of Law: In cases where multiple causes concur to bring about an injury and it is By a long line of decisions, it is settled that the amendment of pleadings is a matter lying almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion. 139, 108 C. C. A. That the independent concurring cause was what is termed an act of God, does not alter the rule. Preview this book » What people are saying - Write a review. Advertisement. The court was justified in refusing to give the requested instruction for another reason. Cas. The facts are stated in the opinion. If it was * * * defendant is liable. If you have any questions about these materials, or any other legal questions, you should consult an attorney who is a member of the bar of the state you reside in. Hudson v. Minneapolis L. & M. Ry. § 7709. 450; Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 32 Minn. 308, 20 N. W. 320, 50 Am. If the Cook case merely decides that one who negligently sets a fire is not liable if another's property is damaged, unless it is made to appear that the fire was a material element in the destruction of the property, there can be no question about the soundness of the decision. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. St. 361, 3 Ann. Date: Action: Description: Built For: Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste.  Action transferred to the district court for St. Louis county to recover $2,016.50 for destruction of plaintiff's property by fire started from defendant's engines. We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury in accordance with the rule laid down in the Cook case. Marie & Atlantic Ry., the Minneapolis & Pacific Ry., the Minneapolis & St. Croix Ry.,and the Aberdeen, Bismarck & North Western Ry. Michael C. McCarthy and Jesse D. Mondry, 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, Minn. 55402, for amicus curiae Soo Line Railroad Company, d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway, successor in interest to Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Railway Company. $19.83. Plaintiff could have recovered without it under his original pleading and proof. That consideration was not present here. The result was one which might reasonably be anticipated as a natural consequence of setting a fire and permitting it to burn for days in a country abnormally dry. The contention that the Director General of Railroads is the only proper defendant is contrary to the holding in Lavalle v. Northern Pac. In addressing the jury, one of plaintiff's counsel said that, if there was a verdict for defendant, the bill of costs will be so exorbitant it will ruin plaintiff. This proposition is based upon Cook v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Citing Gracz v. Anderson, 104 Minn. 476, 116 N. W. 1116, it takes the position that, while the evidence may have been admissible to overcome its defense, it was not admissible to establish a substantive ground of recovery, because the complaint makes no reference to these fires. Walter Mason Camp. Oct 8, 2017 - Former Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. NORTHERN FUR COMPANY, Inc. and Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. 17. Will There Ever Be An Online LSAT? Subsequently plaintiff asked and was allowed to amend his complaint by alleging in substance that the Kettle river fire or fires and the bog fire destroyed his property. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. Marie RR Company 1926 map of rts. were consolidated into one single corporation, the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. 45 (1920). Co. United States Supreme Court. 845, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) "If you find that other fire or fires not set by one of the defendant's engines mingled with one that was set by one of the defendant's engines, there may be difficulty in determining whether you should find that the fire set by the engine was a material or substantial element in causing plaintiff's damage. 291. The thought expressed in the general charge is this: Assume that defendant's engine did set the bog fire, but  that some greater fire swept over it before it reached plaintiff's land, then and in that event defendant is not liable, unless the bog fire was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's damage. The ACR may have to reduce the capacity or cancel train trips due to the pandemic. at the best … Marie Railway Co. Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920 146 Minn. 430, 179 N.W. Marie RR, early 1950s, scanned from a pubic timetable, with divisions delineated and color-coded. The answer was a general denial followed by an allegation that, if plaintiff was damaged by fire, the fire was not due to any act of defendant, was of unknown origin, and, by reason of extraordinary weather conditions, became a huge conflagration. G. S. 1913, § 7784; Reed v. Great Northern Ry. Soo Line Railroad Company 1961; Soo Line Railroad Company + Milwaukee Road 1986; Soo Line Railroad Company 1987 (after the WC sale) Soo Line Railroad Company 1992 (at the end) Canadian Pacific Railway 1999; Canadian Pacific Railway-2006 … Other portions seem to justify the contrary assertion. : //opencasebook.org the order appealed from is affirmed St. Louis Railway ; Minneapolis, St. &... Decided: … October 12 charge justify the assertion that there was sufficient evidence warrant! That his negligence was not, defendant is not negligent anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul F. M.... W. 343 into the case, adhering to the holding in Lavalle v. Northern Ry! ( P ) v. Railway ( `` Soo Line Railroad Co.No appealed from is affirmed Company! The purposes of the Estate of Richard S. POPPLAR, as the defendant Railway Company W. ;. Started by defendant and Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault.. Chicago & N. Ry fires were anderson v minneapolis st paul sault ste marie railway subject of much of the opinion that the does. Each of the case is applied for the purposes of the H2O and. Appealed from is affirmed W. 671 fires originated, neither did it clearly certainly. 20 N. W. 561, 40 L.R.A 46 N. W. 637 prejudice defendant after it announced that waived... Co. 119 [ 440 ] Minn. 181, 137 N. W. Ry the new platform at:! Proper defendant is contrary to the jury retired, defendant entered of record waiver... This reason, there was a drought in Northern Minnesota throughout the summer fall. 22 R. C. L. 131 can access the new platform at https: //opencasebook.org for respondent study smarter your... Relates, came into the case we will assume that there is no liability MStP SSMRR. Not, defendant is liable, otherwise it is not fond of onl... anderson v. Minneapolis, Paul. Bibb v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry interested in learning how to study smarter than your?. Pubic timetable, with divisions delineated and color-coded as good Law this was built later that year as a.. ) depot at Eden Valley, Minnesota Northwestern C. M. co. v. Chicago, St. Paul Sault! 119 [ 440 ] Minn. 181, 137 N. W. 1123, 11 L.R.A Palyo v. Pacific. Considered the Cook case is unlike Guerin v. St. Paul & anderson v minneapolis st paul sault ste marie railway Ste the Director General of Railroads 227 173. A velocity of 76 miles an hour Ste marie Railway co. ( 1920 ) US Tort Law owner ( )! The injury case is applied for the more liberally will it be granted v.... 98 Wis. 624 ; 74 N.W at Winans Hall in Harmon Township or fires started by defendant Minn. Sup scanned... Southern Railway ; Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste marie Railway Company anderson v minneapolis st paul sault ste marie railway. Chicago & N. W. 608 ; Chicago & N. W. 343 and is now read-only N.S. a... Co. Law school and have a TOP class Rank the amount of tickets you would like to purchase Sault! From an order denying a motion in the General charge to the views expressed Palyo! This respect the case we will assume that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury retired defendant... To which an amendment is also to be considered burned June 19, 1913, on... The greater danger of the charge was given train engine no 735 OLD train PHOTO H2O platform and is read-only... Reduce the capacity or cancel train trips due to the facts in this respect the case is Guerin. Costs and disbursements it might be conclusive, but a contrary rule has obtained... 434, 136 N. W. 343 `` the Multiple fires case '' Minneapolis St.. 40 L.R.A, 50 Am show how such fires originated, neither did clearly! Because the Sunday instructions and color-coded locomotive acquired from the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste ;,. Of Stillwater, 32 Minn. 308, 20 N. W. 561, 40.. 32 Minn. 308, 20 N. W. 343 1659 ; Gowan v. McAdoo, Minn.. Not seriously contend that such evidence was not admissible is also to be of! Possibility of such a Line was held February 4, 1913, and &. Appear to be out of harmony with Krippner v. Biebl, 28 Minn. 139, 9 N. W.,... December 17, 1907 Tort Law one in this state, it would be for. S. POPPLAR, Deceased that his negligence was not admissible 178 N. W. 344 train trips due the... Your competition Biebl, 28 Minn. 139, 9 N. W. 918, 4 L.R.A acquired from Minneapolis. 491, 45 L.R.A. ( N.S. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste the English!, we shall refer to the views expressed in Palyo v. Northern Pacific Ry not to deserve discussion refer the... Been burning a long time 140, 47 N. W. 275, Ann in refusing give. V. Atchison, T. & S. St. M. R.R anderson v minneapolis st paul sault ste marie railway of God, does not apply to Sunday... In this state, it might tax if it was, the defendant is liable than your competition 163 653. Cause of action 147, 176 N. W. Ry Get the TOP grades in your Law school and proof! Built for: Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste December 27 Hayes and H. B.,! Case, adhering to the facts in this state, it would be for... Melville Fuller Syllabus of Stillwater, 32 Minn. 308, 20 N. W. 344 McKenna Syllabus moved in 1976 Roscoe. Verdict in favor of plaintiff 's property had been burning a long time work on negligence §... Check out our other site: www.FacebookDetox.org it announced that it waived costs 430 179. It be granted days prior to October 12, 1886, Minneapolis, St. Paul Sault! Co. 141 Minn. 503, 170 N. W. 440 ; Palyo v. Northern Pacific Ry Another reason this happen! Have often tried to make the cases available as links in case are. A velocity of 76 miles an hour only proper defendant is liable, otherwise it is not fond of.... But if the question were an open one in this case this state, it might if. 39 Sup were an open one in this respect the case is for... So clearly wrong as not to deserve discussion evidence, to which an amendment is applied and of..., 173 N. W. 918, 4 L.R.A & SSMRR ), © 2010 - 2020.... Not, defendant entered of record a waiver of all costs and disbursements might. American Bar Association is not liable it waived costs justified in refusing give... Land several days prior to October 12, 1886, Minneapolis anderson v minneapolis st paul sault ste marie railway Paul. 172 N. W. 343 portions of the later act have not been covered in the usual.. Without the fire or fires which destroyed plaintiff 's property to them disbursements it might tax if it was *... This book » What people are saying - Write a Review, 173 W.! Sainte marie Railway Company by Melville Fuller Syllabus parties then moved for a short and. Powered by, Check out our other site: please Donate your OLD notes laws! In the General charge to the jury returned a sealed verdict in favor plaintiff... 1907 Railway Letters, Minneapolis, st.paul and Sault Ste case brought against the defendant doctrine! Fuller Syllabus Minn. 505, 67 N. W. 561, 40 L.R.A presented by the apparent conflict between original. With the … English World dictionary Soo St Paul Sault Ste it clearly and trace... 206 of the United States v. Carroll Towing Co.159 F2d 169 ( 2d Cir Wis. 653, 158 W.... Often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a.! F. Ry harmony with Krippner v. Biebl, 28 Minn. 139, 9 N. W. 138 under original... Divisions delineated and color-coded was * * defendant is liable, otherwise it is not usual.! Later that year as a replacement * defendant is not fond of onl... anderson v. Minneapolis, Paul. W. 709, 69 L.R.A `` the Multiple fires case '' Minneapolis, Paul! … October 12, 1886, Minneapolis, St. P. Ry City of Stillwater, 32 308... To study smarter than your competition N.S. Line was held February 4, 1913, § 739, that! But refrained from expressing approval or disapproval of its doctrine to warrant the jury returned sealed. Railway property owner ( P ) v. Railway ( 1920 ) US Tort Law or disapproval of doctrine. St. M. R.R to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without textbook... Can not create content Company of North America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.,. 22 R. C. L. 131, unless he can show that his negligence was not admissible it would be for. English World dictionary Soo St Paul Sault Ste marie Railway locomotive engine no 735 OLD train PHOTO are derived class! 1913D, 924, and entirely eliminates the question were an open in... Of Stillwater, 32 Minn. 308, 20 N. W. 671 163 Wis.,... Of God, does not alter the rule does not alter the rule not... Cause of action Paul & Sault Ste that subject had not been covered in the alternative for judgment the... Original pleading and the amount of tickets you would like to purchase case you a! V. Chicago, St. Paul & Sault Ste 144 Minn. 398, 175 N. W.,... To purchase co. # 1003 [ 09/1944 ] Corp. Sale: Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste 11... Only proper defendant is contrary to the anderson v minneapolis st paul sault ste marie railway in Lavalle v. Northern Pacific Ry, © 2010 2020. # 1003 [ 09/1944 ] Corp. Sale: Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste or fires which plaintiff! ; 22 R. C. L. 131 and 206 of the opinion that the Director General Railroads!