Neville v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., New York Central & Hudson River R. Co., Goodrich v., (N. Y.).... 259 R. Co., Alberti v., (N. Y.)..... 201 New York, Mayor etc. of City of, New York & New England R. Co., ford R. Co., Bennett v., (Conn.) 184 New York, Ontario & Western R. Co., Hunter v., (N. Y.)................ 248 Newman v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., Richmond & Danville R. Co., Bain Rine v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., Robbins, Southern Kansas R. Co. 42 St Louis, Iron Mountain & South- ern R. Co. v. Worthen, (Ark.) 589 St. Paul City R. Co., Shacherl v., 154 St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba & Ohio R. Co. v., (Md.)........ 126 rel. Trammel v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co., (Mo.)...... 581| Usher v. West Jersey R. Co., (Pa.) 508 Vaughn v. California Cent. R. Co., (Cal.). 363 Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific R. Co., Walker v., (La.)....... 172 Walker v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific R. Co., (La.). Wallace v. Western North Carolina R. Co., (N. Car.).... v. Wilmington & N. R. Co., (Del.)... — ex rel. Bell ". Harshaw, (Wis.) 685 Watson v. St. Paul City R. Co. ern R. Co. v., (Tex.).. - International & Great North-Johnson v., (Ala.).. ex rel. Wine v. Keokuk & Western R. Co., (Mo.)... of 172 212 194 ..... 611 275 (Minn.). Weber v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., (Mo.).. 114 117 New Orleans & Texas R. Co. v. Mississippi, Louisville, v. (U.S.). St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba R. Co., (Minn.)...... 625 v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., (Minn.). 636 Usher v., (Pa.). Western & A. R. Co. v. Lewis, (Ga.)..... Western North Carolina R. Co., Wallace v., (N. Car.)................ Whalen v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., (Wis.). THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RAILROAD CASES. VOLUME XLI. JORDAN υ. ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA R. Co. (Minnesota Supreme Court, December 9, 1889.) Special Findings-Motion to Set Aside New Trial. When there is a general verdict, and also special findings of fact, it is not proper practice to move to set aside one of the findings of fact as contrary to the evidence, without asking for a new trial of the whole issue or of that particular question of fact, especially if setting it aside would require a judgment different from what would be required if it were allowed to stand. Obstruction of Surface Waters-Construction of Railroad Across Prairie.The rule that a land-owner may improve his own land for the purpose for which similar land is ordinarily used, and may do what is necessary for that purpose-as, to build upon it, or raise or lower its surface, even though the effect may be to prevent surface water which before flowed upon it from coming upon it, or to draw from adjoining land surface water that would otherwise remain there, or to shed surface water over land on which it would not otherwise go-applied to a railroad company constructing its road across a prairie country. APPEAL from District Court, Clay County. W. B. Douglass for appellant. M. D. Grover and W. E. Dodge for respondent. Complaint. GILFILLAN, C. J.-From the course of the trial in this case, as shown by the settled statement of the case, it is apparent that the parties did not, by consent, enter upon the trial of any other than the issues made by the pleadings. This makes it necessary to refer to the complaint to ascertain what issues it presents; that is, what act of the defendant it alleges as wrongful. It alleges that the defendant wrongfully, unlawfully, wantonly, negligently, and maliciously cut, dug, and made, and caused to be dug, cut, and made, |