These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. Ct., 146 Minn. 430, 179 N.W. 291. 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 … Defendant introduced evidence to show that on and prior to October 12 fires were burning west and northwest of and were swept by the wind towards plaintiff's premises. If this should happen, all tickets will be refunded 100%. Scheurer v. Great Northern Ry. I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook. 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, genannt „Soo Line“, war eine amerikanische Eisenbahngesellschaft, deren Streckennetz hauptsächlich die US-Bundesstaaten Wisconsin, Minnesota und North Dakota sowie den nördlichen Teil von Michigan erschloss. The further contention that, when he is joined with a railroad company as a defendant, section 10 of the Federal Control Act (U. S. Comp. Both motions were denied. Date: Action: Description: Built For: Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. 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. Co. 117 Minn. 434, 136 N. W. 275, Ann. Page 431. One of defendant's was that plaintiff had predicated his cause of action upon the bog fire; that, if he failed to establish that cause of action, he could not recover, even though the jury should find that other fires referred to in the evidence were started by defendant's locomotives and contributed to the burning of his property. Marie Railway Property owner (P) v. Railway (D) Minn. Sup. 726. We haven't found any reviews in the usual places. Page 315. Co. 163 Wis. 653, 158 N. W. 343. Selected pages. Portions of the charge justify the assertion that there is no conflict. Numerous special instructions were requested. * * *, "If you find from the evidence * * * that the property of the plaintiff was injured or destroyed by fire communicated directly or indirectly [434] by (defendant's) locomotive engines * * * your deliberations, so far as the question of liability of the defendant is concerned, are at an end, and the next question for you to consider is the amount of plaintiff's damages. Jacob Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company and Railway Exp Agency, Inc. 2 Dunnell, Minn. None of defendant's counsel were present when the Sunday proceedings took place. [432] 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. The field to be covered by the evidence was enlarged, but it was defendant's pleading and proof that made it necessary to enlarge it. 28 S.Ct. It added to and changed the statement of the time and place of origin of the fire which was first alleged to have inflicted the injury. Soo Line, the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Page 602. From Wikisource. 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. Co. supra; Northwestern C. M. Co. v. Chicago, B. --- Decided: … The supreme court of Idaho says the opinion is logical and well reasoned, but the discussion is in a large measure theoretical and academic. If the question were an open one in this state, it might be conclusive, but a contrary rule has long obtained here. The original Eden Valley Soo depot burned June 19, 1913 and this was built later that year as a replacement. A more difficult question is presented by the apparent conflict between the general charge to the jury and the Sunday instructions. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Soo — [so͞o] [alteration of Sault] region in N Mich. & S Ontario, Canada, at the St. Marys Falls Canals, including the city of Sault Ste. In 1886, the Minneapolis & Pacific Railway reached Lidgerwood, Dakota Territory. 791 / 9-26-1955 Northern Fur Company, Incorporated, and Insurance Company of North America, Petitioners, v. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Cas. Opinion of the Court. Co. 44 Minn. 52, 46 N. W. 314; Reilly v. Bader, 46 Minn. 212, 48 N. W. 909; Strite G. P. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Minn. 372, 152 N. W. 765. Trustees v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 561; 1898: PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Trial court: Appeal court (for appeal cases only): Plaintiff: Cook: Appellant: Mn railway: Defendant: Mn railway: Respondent: Cook: Facts of the case: As to the origin of the fire which … For this reason, there was no error in denying a new trial on this ground. 139, 108 C. C. A. Petition / JOHN M AHERNE / 1955 / 426 / 350 U.S. 900 / 76 S.Ct. Co. 98 Wis. 624, 74 N. W. 561, 40 L.R.A. Court Documents. Page 432. Before the jury retired, defendant entered of record a waiver of all costs and disbursements it might tax if it prevailed. The precise situation covered by the Sunday instructions may not have been in the mind of the court when the charge was given. 474. Bankers' Mutual Casualty Company v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Company by Melville Fuller Syllabus. & Q. Ry. 2x 1906 & 1907 Railway Letters, Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Moreover the reasoning of the court in McClellan v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. For the purposes of the case we will assume that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in so finding. In the foregoing discussion we have assumed, although it is doubtful, that the evidence was such that a foundation was laid for the application of the rule if it was otherwise applicable. 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. Exch. Pluchak v. Crawford, 137 Mich. 509, 100 N. W. 765. Interested in. Page 717. SOO St Paul Sault Ste Marie Railway locomotive engine No 735 OLD TRAIN PHOTO. If it was * * * defendant is liable. But if it decides that if such fire combines with another of no responsible origin, and after the union of the two fires they destroy the property, and either fire independently of the other would have destroyed it, then, irrespective of whether the first fire was or was not a material factor in the destruction of the property, there is no liability, we are not prepared to adopt the doctrine as the law of this state. 3: Congress International 1 . Complaint is made because the Sunday proceedings took place in the absence of defendant's counsel. Defendant had an opportunity to offer evidence of how the Kettle river fires originated and what became of them, but deliberately decided not to go into the subject. Please select a coach and the amount of tickets you would like to purchase. They started west or northwest of plaintiff's land several days prior to October 12. Co. supra, page 240, 178 N. W. 608; Chicago & N. W. Ry. The reply put these allegations in issue. 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. As it seems to us, there was at most an obscurity, due to the omission after the words "greater fire" of the qualifying phrase "set by one of defendant's engines" or "not set by one of defendant's engines." not exculpate the fi rst party, unless he can show that his negligence was not a material element in causing the injury. Railway Review, Incorporated, 1905 - Railroads. 0 Reviews . Co. v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. 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 … 224 F2d 181 Northern Fur Company v. Minneapolis St Paul & Sault Ste Marie Railway Company . Marie Railway Co. #1003 [09/1944] Corp. Sale: Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Defendant concludes that, by the greater fire referred to, the court meant the Kettle river fire for which defendant may have been responsible. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. The Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. We are satisfied that there was no abuse of discretion in granting the application to amend the complaint to make it conform to proof properly received to meet the defense. 45 Facts In August 1918, one of defendant’s engines started a fire in a bog near the west side of the plaintiff’s land. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Secretary of Agriculture Conferences with . sister projects: Wikidata item. The appeal is from an order denying a motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. In Farrell v. Minneapolis & R. R. Ry. 845, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) NORTHERN FUR COMPANY, Inc. and Insurance Company of North America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. Moore v. Townsend, 76 Minn. 64, 78 N. W. 880; Bibb B. C. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Marie Railway (Soo Line) October 12, 1886, Montana Central Railroad - Construction October 12, 1886, Nelson, Knute Rep. 13; Marvin v. Ry. 506; Hightower v. Ry. Plaintiff's case in chief was directed to proving that in August, 1918, one of defendant's engines started a fire in a bog near the west side of plaintiff's land; that it smoldered there until October 12, 1918, when it [433] flared up and burned his property shortly before it was reached by one of the great fires which swept through northeastern Minnesota at the close of that day. Federal Reporter, Second Series . The facts are stated in the opinion. 15 September 17, 1920. "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. Opinion of the Court. Co. 94 Minn. 269, 102 N. W. 709, 69 L.R.A. Although the court is not obliged to notify counsel when the jury returns for further instructions, we believe it has been the custom of district judges to send notice to counsel before such instructions are given, unless the trial would be unreasonably delayed if this were done. [436] Another consideration is the manner in which evidence, to which an amendment relates, came into the case. It's no secret that the American Bar Association is not fond of onl... Anderson v. Minneapolis, st.paul and sault ste. 1. Law school and the internet have not been that good of friends. related portals: Supreme Court of the United States. 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. Defendant relies on the rule that a wrongdoer may escape liability by showing that a new cause of plaintiff's injury intervened between the wrongful act and the final injurious result thereof, provided such intervening cause was not under the wrongdoer's control, could not by the exercise of reasonable diligence be anticipated as likely to occur and except for which the injury would not have been done to plaintiff. JACOB ANDERSON v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. Marie Railway179 N.W. 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. Powered by, Check out our other site: Cancel Unsubscribe. Loading... Unsubscribe from Minnesota Gravel Road.? $6.41 + $3.77 shipping . in Err., v. THOMAS DOUGHTY. Argued December 17, 1907. EOG Resources, Inc. v. Soo Line Railroad Co.No. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 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. Marie Railway Co. Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920 146 Minn. 430, 179 N.W. Ry. 2 Dunnell, Minn. We are of the opinion that the rule does not apply to the facts in this case. Marie railway (1920) 146 Minn. 430 Procedural History • Defendants appealed a judgment of the District Court of St. Louis County (Minnesota) after a jury found them liable for damages caused by sparks coming from a locomotive engine that set a fire that spread until it reached plaintiff’s land, where it destroyed some of his property. Co. Marie RR No. The court answered that it would be liable. Ct. 435, 63 L. ed. That the independent concurring cause was what is termed an act of God, does not alter the rule. 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 … Adams v. Castle, 64 Minn. 505, 67 N. W. 637. Home. Marie; Reservations; FAQ; Facilities & Services Contact-- 2021 Season Update --Tickets ONLY for September 18 - October 12, 2021 Peak season are now available. 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. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 1915C, 1214. 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 [435] over plaintiff's land and did the damage. The fire or fires which destroyed plaintiff's property had been burning a long time. v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. Help Support This Site: Please Donate Your Old Notes and Outlines! Ordinarily the earlier an amendment is applied for the more liberally will it be granted. 224 F.2d 181. 21,855. 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. McEvers, Justice. The custom has our unqualified approval, not [438] only as a proper exercise of judicial courtesy, but for the better reason that if one of the parties is represented while the other is not and the latter is the loser, he is almost certain to believe that an unfair advantage of him has been taken and his confidence in the impartial administration of justice is shaken. 450; Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 32 Minn. 308, 20 N. W. 320, 50 Am. September 17, 1920. Marie (standard gauge) Minnesota & International (standard gauge) Missouri-Kansas-Texas Lines (3 foot, standard gauge) Missouri & North Arkansas (standard gauge) Missouri Pacific Lines (standard gauge) Mobile & Ohio Rail Road (standard gauge) Monongahela Railway (standard gauge) Monon Route (standard gauge) Montana Railway (standard gauge) … 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. Die Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. 853, is authority in defendant's favor upon this point. The Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Annual Report Minneapolis St. Pau & Sault Ste. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL, & SAULT STE. Circa 1900-1950. United States Supreme Court. If the rule were otherwise, it would be easy for a negligent 45 (Minn. 1920). Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Co. 76 Minn. 163, 78 N. W. 974. 17. It did not show how such fires originated, neither did it clearly and certainly trace the destruction of plaintiff's property to them. The scope of the amendment is also to be considered. Cas. 1, § 739, says that the conclusion reached is so clearly wrong as not to deserve discussion. Neither the drought nor the wind would or could have destroyed plaintiff's property without the fire. Marie Railway Company (M.St.P.&S.S.M.) For convenience, we shall refer to the railway company, throughout this opinion, as the defendant. Defendant was bound to know that the greater the drought the greater danger of the spread of a fire. Marie Railway Case Brief - Rule of Law: In cases where multiple causes concur to bring about an injury and it is Marie RR Company 1926 map of rts. Co. was a fire case. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Railway Company v. Doughty by Joseph McKenna Syllabus. Will There Ever Be An Online LSAT? Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. 9 No. This proposition is based upon Cook v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. § 7709. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St.Paul & Sault Ste. Anderson v. Minneapolis, st.paul and sault ste. § 7696. G. S. 1913, § 4426, leaves no room for the application of a rule which would relieve a railroad company from liability under such circumstances. No. 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. Hudson v. Minneapolis L. & M. Ry. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL, & SAULT STE. 19. The ACR may have to reduce the capacity or cancel train trips due to the pandemic. Construction began in April, 1913, and on November 12, 1913, the first train came through Rosholt. From an order denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendants appealed. Co. 141 Minn. 503, 170 N. W. 505. The Kettle river fires were the subject of much of the testimony received. 208 U.S. 251. * * *. This is a fire case brought against the defendant railway company and the Director General of Railroads. 1659; Gowan v. McAdoo, 143 Minn. 227, 173 N. W. 440; Palyo v. Northern Pacific Ry. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. If the amendment to a complaint does not introduce an entirely new cause of action, but merely changes the statement of the manner in which the injury was inflicted, it is ordinarily permissible. In this respect the case is unlike Guerin v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Plaintiff had a verdict. St. 361, 3 Ann. Anderson v. Minneapolis St. P. & S. Supreme Court of MN - 1920 Facts: A forest fire was found to have been caused by the negligence of the D. It merged with another fire of independent and unknown origin and destroyed P's property. Dodge, Hugh J. McClearn, and Devaney & McGrath, for respondent. You can access the new platform at If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. Marie Railroad (MStP&SSMRR), bis 1944: Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. The Railway and Engineering Review. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY AND OTHERS. Affirmed. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Minnesota Gravel Road. It was protracted and severe. Defendant requested the court to instruct that the extraordinary and unusual wind and weather conditions on October 12, 1918, were such an efficient and independent cause of plaintiff's damage as to relieve defendant from liability. 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. However, if a variance has not misled the adverse party to his prejudice, an amendment will be permitted even after an appeal to this court. United States Supreme Court. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. R.R. [432] 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. The case cited states the familiar rule that, when issues not made by the pleadings are litigated by consent, an amendment should be ordered as a matter of course, and, when not voluntarily litigated, the matter rests in the discretion of the court, and holds that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow an amendment which introduced as a substantive ground of recovery acts of negligence not originally pleaded but brought out in the evidence. The Sunday instructions were supplemental to and not contradictory of the general charge, and the assertion that the law as stated on Saturday ceased to be a law after the court's utterance on Sunday, is not borne out by the record. What about an online Bar Exam. The following proposition is stated in defendant's brief and relied on for a reversal: "If plaintiff's property was damaged by a number of fires combining, one * * * being the fire pleaded * * * the others being of no responsible origin, but of such sufficient or such superior force that they would have produced the damage to plaintiff's property regardless of the fire pleaded, then defendant was not liable.". On the following Monday the jury returned a sealed verdict in favor of plaintiff. How To Get A's In Law School and Have a TOP Class Rank! Marie Railway Co. (1920) US Tort Law. See sections 202 and 206 of the later act. Co. 67 Mo. Co. 48 Minn. 433, 51 N. W. 225; McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263, 116 N. W. 470, 18 L.R.A.(N.S.) 224 F.2d. 1891 MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY and Railway … Co. 121 Minn. 357, 141 N. W. 491, 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) United States v. Carroll Towing Co.159 F2d 169 (2d Cir. 81. Walter Mason Camp. 1: ailroad . Each of the parties then moved for a directed verdict. 457, 67 Am. This request was denied. The variance between the original pleading and the proof in such a case ought to be disregarded because it cannot mislead. Supreme Court of Minnesota. 45 (1920). Co. 44 Minn. 20, 46 N. W. 138. G. S. 1913, § 7784; Reed v. Great Northern Ry. "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 supreme court of Michigan has referred to it as good law. Co. 119 [440] Minn. 181, 137 N. W. 970; Home Ins. Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co. 250 U. S. 76, 39 Sup. Image: ‘Train Painting’ by William Wray. Marie (Soo Line) depot at Eden Valley, Minnesota. Marie RR, early 1950s, scanned from a pubic timetable, with divisions delineated and color-coded. SOO St Paul Sault Ste Marie Railway train engine No 735 OLD TRAIN PHOTO . Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway ("Soo Line") was used on the railroad. 1925) The amendment did not introduce an entirely new cause of action. It was doubly so in view of the fact that the trial had occupied several weeks, the testimony of more than a hundred witnesses had been taken, and there would be a formidable bill of costs that one of the parties must pay. The depot was moved in 1976 to Roscoe for a short time and then on to Saint … Page 876. 251. Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? 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. Fent v. Ry. 509, 110 Am. There was a drought in northern Minnesota throughout the summer and fall of 1918. $19.83. 1913D, 924, and entirely eliminates the question of negligence. Co. 24 Idaho, 567, 135 Pac. Jurisdiction: We find no error requiring a reversal, and hence the order appealed from is affirmed. * * *, "If you find that bog fire was set by the defendant's engine and that some greater fire swept over it before it reached the plaintiff's land, then it will be for you to determine whether that bog fire * * * was a material or substantial factor in causing plaintiff's damage. 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. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Marie Railway Company. 20140122. No. A warning sign from “Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. The Ringquist case, adhering to the views expressed in Palyo v. Northern Pacific Ry. $24.79 + $3.79 shipping . MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. But if the doctrine of the Cook case is applied and one of the fires is of unknown origin, there is no liability. sister projects: Wikidata item. The thought expressed in the general charge is this: Assume that defendant's engine did set the bog fire, but [437] 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. By cross-examination of defendant's witnesses and by his rebuttal evidence, plaintiff made a showing which would have justified the jury in finding that the fires proved by defendant were started by its locomotive on or near its right of way in the vicinity of Kettle river. 52 L.Ed. 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. Co. 143 Minn. 74, 172 N. W. 918, 4 L.R.A. The evidence received was admissible. Marie Railway Co.” intended to be applied to railroad car doors equipped with charcoal heaters: “WARNING / Poisonous Fumes / HEATED CAR” and additional text printed in red and black ink on yellowish white. If it was, the defendant is liable, otherwise it is not. * * * If the plaintiff was burned out by fire set by one of defendant's engines in combination with some other fire not set by any of its engines," then it is liable. 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.