Cherokee & Dakota Railway Co. v. Renken

Supreme Court of Iowa

Cherokee & Dakota Railway Co. v. Renken

42 N.W. 307, 77 Iowa 316, 1889 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 181

DecidedMay 11, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 42 N.W. 307 (Cherokee & Dakota Railway Co. v. Renken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cherokee & Dakota Railway Co. v. Renken, 42 N.W. 307, 77 Iowa 316, 1889 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 181 (iowa 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Granger, J.

The plaintiff, in 1887, constructed a line of railroad from Cherokee, Iowa, to Sioux Falls, Dakota, which line crossed the lands of the defendant, [317]*317the right of way over which is in question. The main controversy is as to whether or not, before the construction of the road, the defendant agreed that, in consequence of the building of the road, he would give the right of way. As^vve view it, the case involves simply this question of fact. The testimony is short. Prior to the location of the road, and while its location was doubtful, about Sheldon and points in Lyon county there was considerable anxiety to secure it. Committees were appointed with a view to secure the right of way as a condition upon which the road might be located. The defendant was interviewed by one of the plaintiffs, who testifies that he said to him that he would not then sign a contract to give the right of way, but that he would give it. Huntington, Smith and Brown each testify that defendant said he would give the right of way if the road was built. While it does not appear that the road was located relying upon this particular grant of right of way, it does appear that the securing the right of way generally was a condition to its location. Opposed to this testimony is that of the defendant alone, in which he denies having agreed to give the right of way. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence. It is sufficient to say that it largely predominates in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Granger, J.

The plaintiff, in 1887, constructed a line of railroad from Cherokee, Iowa, to Sioux Falls, Dakota, which line crossed the lands of the defendant, [317]*317the right of way over which is in question. The main controversy is as to whether or not, before the construction of the road, the defendant agreed that, in consequence of the building of the road, he would give the right of way. As^vve view it, the case involves simply this question of fact. The testimony is short. Prior to the location of the road, and while its location was doubtful, about Sheldon and points in Lyon county there was considerable anxiety to secure it. Committees were appointed with a view to secure the right of way as a condition upon which the road might be located. The defendant was interviewed by one of the plaintiffs, who testifies that he said to him that he would not then sign a contract to give the right of way, but that he would give it. Huntington, Smith and Brown each testify that defendant said he would give the right of way if the road was built. While it does not appear that the road was located relying upon this particular grant of right of way, it does appear that the securing the right of way generally was a condition to its location. Opposed to this testimony is that of the defendant alone, in which he denies having agreed to give the right of way. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence. It is sufficient to say that it largely predominates in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.W. 307, 77 Iowa 316, 1889 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherokee-dakota-railway-co-v-renken-iowa-1889.