Pierro v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Pierro v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co.

34 N.W. 38, 37 Minn. 314, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 116

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 27, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 38 (Pierro v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pierro v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co., 34 N.W. 38, 37 Minn. 314, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 116 (Mich. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.¹

In this action of trespass the plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries done upon his premises, a part of which were in the nature of waste. A former action had been commenced in the same court for the recovery from the defendant of the possession of' a part of the same premises, and for the recovery of $250 for the use and occupation of the land. That action was removed to the circuit court of the United States, upon the defendant’s petition, and in that, court judgment had been entered by consent of parties for the recovery by the plaintiff of $20 and costs. Upon the trial of this action,, for injury done upon the premises, the court excluded proof of the-former judgment; but afterwards, deeming this to have been wrong, a new trial Was granted.

It is claimed that the circuit court had not jurisdiction, because-the amount in dispute did not exceed the sum or value of $500. It does not appear that the matter in dispute did not exceed that’value. The petition upon which the cause was removed shows a case within the jurisdiction of that court, and the assumption to the contrary is [315]*315not supported by anything in the record. Jurisdiction is to be presumed, unless the want of it is disclosed by the record. Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9.

The majority of the court are of the opinion that with an action’ for the recovery of real property, and for the use and occupation of the same, may properly be united a claim for injuries done to the estate by the defendant while in possession,-Adams, Ej. [4th Ed.] 460; Lippett v. Kelley, 46 Vt. 516; Alsop v. Peck, 2 Root, 224; Huston v. Wickersham, 2 Watts & S. 308; Cooch v. Geery, 3 Harr. (Del.) 423; Cunningham v. Morris, 19 Ga. 583, (65 Am. Dec. 611,)—that this is-substantially a part of the same cause of action as that for which the rental value may be recovered, that is, the wrongful possession and-occupancy by the defendant; and that the former judgment constituted a bar to the recovery of damages for. injuries to the estate during the time of occupancy. See Sedg. & W. Tr. of Title to Land, § 668-In this view, however, I do not concur. See, contra, Bottorff v. Wise, 53 Ind. 32; Pacquette v. Pickness, 19 Wis. 219; Burr v. Woodrow, 1 Bush, 602; Hicks v. Herring, 17 Cal. 566; Budd v. Bingham, 18 Barb. 494; Gill v. Cole, 1 Har. & J. 403, (2 Am. Dec. 527.) See, also, Lord v. Bearing, 24 Minn. 110, 112, 113.

Order affirmed.

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

Dickinson, J.¹

In this action of trespass the plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries done upon his premises, a part of which were in the nature of waste. A former action had been commenced in the same court for the recovery from the defendant of the possession of' a part of the same premises, and for the recovery of $250 for the use and occupation of the land. That action was removed to the circuit court of the United States, upon the defendant’s petition, and in that, court judgment had been entered by consent of parties for the recovery by the plaintiff of $20 and costs. Upon the trial of this action,, for injury done upon the premises, the court excluded proof of the-former judgment; but afterwards, deeming this to have been wrong, a new trial Was granted.

It is claimed that the circuit court had not jurisdiction, because-the amount in dispute did not exceed the sum or value of $500. It does not appear that the matter in dispute did not exceed that’value. The petition upon which the cause was removed shows a case within the jurisdiction of that court, and the assumption to the contrary is [315]*315not supported by anything in the record. Jurisdiction is to be presumed, unless the want of it is disclosed by the record. Turrell v. Warren, 25 Minn. 9.

The majority of the court are of the opinion that with an action’ for the recovery of real property, and for the use and occupation of the same, may properly be united a claim for injuries done to the estate by the defendant while in possession,-Adams, Ej. [4th Ed.] 460; Lippett v. Kelley, 46 Vt. 516; Alsop v. Peck, 2 Root, 224; Huston v. Wickersham, 2 Watts & S. 308; Cooch v. Geery, 3 Harr. (Del.) 423; Cunningham v. Morris, 19 Ga. 583, (65 Am. Dec. 611,)—that this is-substantially a part of the same cause of action as that for which the rental value may be recovered, that is, the wrongful possession and-occupancy by the defendant; and that the former judgment constituted a bar to the recovery of damages for. injuries to the estate during the time of occupancy. See Sedg. & W. Tr. of Title to Land, § 668-In this view, however, I do not concur. See, contra, Bottorff v. Wise, 53 Ind. 32; Pacquette v. Pickness, 19 Wis. 219; Burr v. Woodrow, 1 Bush, 602; Hicks v. Herring, 17 Cal. 566; Budd v. Bingham, 18 Barb. 494; Gill v. Cole, 1 Har. & J. 403, (2 Am. Dec. 527.) See, also, Lord v. Bearing, 24 Minn. 110, 112, 113.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.W. 38, 37 Minn. 314, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierro-v-st-paul-northern-pacific-railway-co-minn-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack