Sherwood v. Greater Mammoth Vein Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Sherwood v. Greater Mammoth Vein Coal Co.

194 Iowa 439

DecidedSeptember 26, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 194 Iowa 439 (Sherwood v. Greater Mammoth Vein Coal Co.) 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

Sherwood v. Greater Mammoth Vein Coal Co., 194 Iowa 439 (iowa 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, J.

The defendant entered upon the land of the plaintiff, and proceeded to construct thereon a railroad, for the purpose of the transportation of coal. The plaintiff challenged its right to so enter, and brought a suit in equity, to restrain and enjoin the defendant from entering upon his premises and from constructing said railway, and in effect sought to set aside [440]*440a certain prior contract, pursuant to which the defendant had made the entry. The equity suit was tried in the district court, with the result that the merits were found against the plaintiff, and his petition was dismissed. The costs, however, were taxed by the court to the defendant, on the ground that it entered the premises prematurely, and in advance of a tender of payment under the contract. Thereupon, this action for damages was brought, and was predicated upon the theory that the defendant was a trespasser, in that it wrongfully entered upon the land, in advance of tender of payment. The trial court instructed the jury, as a matter of law, and pursuant to the decree in the equity case, that the entry of the defendant was wrongful, and was a trespass, and submitted the case to the jury upon the sole issue of measure of damages. In the equity case, both parties appealed to this court. Upon such appeal, the decree below was affirmed on the appeal of the plaintiff and reversed upon the appeal of the defendant. See Sherwood v. Greater M. V. C. Co., 193 Iowa 365. The result of the reversal was to hold that the entry by the defendant company was rightful, and that it was, therefore, not a trespasser.

Inasmuch as the judgment for damages in the present action was predicated upon the decree in the equity case as an- adjudication, and inasmuch as the adjudication thus relied upon has been duly reversed, a reversal must also result in this action. Such was the holding in Poole, G. & Co. v. Seney, 70 Iowa 275. The judgment below is, accordingly, — Reversed.

Stevens, C. J., AkthuR and Faville, JJ., concur.-

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

Evans, J.

The defendant entered upon the land of the plaintiff, and proceeded to construct thereon a railroad, for the purpose of the transportation of coal. The plaintiff challenged its right to so enter, and brought a suit in equity, to restrain and enjoin the defendant from entering upon his premises and from constructing said railway, and in effect sought to set aside [440]*440a certain prior contract, pursuant to which the defendant had made the entry. The equity suit was tried in the district court, with the result that the merits were found against the plaintiff, and his petition was dismissed. The costs, however, were taxed by the court to the defendant, on the ground that it entered the premises prematurely, and in advance of a tender of payment under the contract. Thereupon, this action for damages was brought, and was predicated upon the theory that the defendant was a trespasser, in that it wrongfully entered upon the land, in advance of tender of payment. The trial court instructed the jury, as a matter of law, and pursuant to the decree in the equity case, that the entry of the defendant was wrongful, and was a trespass, and submitted the case to the jury upon the sole issue of measure of damages. In the equity case, both parties appealed to this court. Upon such appeal, the decree below was affirmed on the appeal of the plaintiff and reversed upon the appeal of the defendant. See Sherwood v. Greater M. V. C. Co., 193 Iowa 365. The result of the reversal was to hold that the entry by the defendant company was rightful, and that it was, therefore, not a trespasser.

Inasmuch as the judgment for damages in the present action was predicated upon the decree in the equity case as an- adjudication, and inasmuch as the adjudication thus relied upon has been duly reversed, a reversal must also result in this action. Such was the holding in Poole, G. & Co. v. Seney, 70 Iowa 275. The judgment below is, accordingly, — Reversed.

Stevens, C. J., AkthuR and Faville, JJ., concur.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Iowa 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwood-v-greater-mammoth-vein-coal-co-iowa-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack