22 Minn. 149 | Minn. | 1875
It is a principle of universal application that for every wrongful act of a party, directly affecting injuriously the property rights of another, the wrong-doer is liable to the party injured to the extent of the pecuniary damage actualty sustained by reason of such act. The doctrine relied upon by defendant, and the authorities cited in its support — that a party is not responsible in damages for the necessary consequences of a lawful act done in a reasonably careful and prudent manner — have no application whatever to the case at bar.
It is admitted that the defendant is a corporation, created under and in pursuance of the general laws of the state, for the purpose of constructing and operating- the line of railroad indicated in the pleadings, with such corporate powers and privileges, and only such, as it has the right thereunder to exercise for that purpose. It is also admitted that the alleged injuries to plaintiff resulted from the acts of defeudant in entering, without plaintiff’s consent, upon a highway located upon and across the east end of her lots and premises, whereon was a dwelling in which she resided, and there raising and constructing a high embankment and obstruction of earth and stones, within fifteen feet of her said dwelling-house, and that said company has never acquired any right so to do from plaintiff, bj' condemnation or otherwise. This was clearly a trespass on the part of the defendant, as settled by the repeated adjudications of this court. Harrington v. St. P. & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 215, 224, and cases cited; Spencer v. St. P. & S. C. R. Co., (ante p. 29.)
Defendant seeks to justify on the ground that it had lawful right to do what it did, and predicates such right upon the following admitted facts: That in the construction of
These facts do not amount to a justification of defendant’s trespass in entering plaintiff’s close and constructing the embankment thereon. •
It is claimed by defendant that it is competent for the legislature to delegate to a private corporation, or an individual, the control of the streets and highways within their jurisdiction, and the authority to change the grade, and repair and improve the same;” and that when such authority is given, and reasonably exercised, any damage resulting therefrom to abutters on such highways is damnum absque injuria ; and that defendant had such power in respect to that portion of the highway whereon the embankment was built under and by virtue of Gen. St. ch. 34, § 29.
As the sole question raised in the case relates to the right of the plaintiff to recover at all, the order denying a new trial must be affirmed.