99 Iowa 565 | Iowa | 1896
II. With these views of the law in mind, we now inquire whether, under the facts, the order as made and affirmed is reasonable.
On the hearing in the district court, appellant introduced evidence tending to show that an opening in the embankment, such as that ordered, would render the roadbed less safe than the solid embankment; that, there being a less depth of earth over the opening than on each side of it, the embankment would “heave” more from frost than would the surface over the opening, thereby causing a depression in the track that would increase the danger from broken rails. Appellee introduced evidence tending to show the contrary, and also showing that the annual rental of his farm would be worth more with than without the underground passage way.
Other questions made by appellant are discussed, but, in the view we take of the case on its merits, they need not be noticed. For the reasons stated, the order and judgment of the district court is reversed.