Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Fite, (Miss.)... Milwaukee R. Co., (Mich.)..... 265 Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Wainright's Kerigan ex rel., Wine v., (Mo.). 694 Ketring. Baltimore & Ohio & Chi- cago R. Co. v., (Ind.). leans & Texas R. Co. v., (U. S.) 36 Mississippi & Tennessee R. Co. 296 Price County, Wisconsin Central Morrison County v. St. Paul & N. Neville v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., New York Central & Hudson River R. Co., Goodrich v., (N. Y.).... 259 New York, Lake Erie & Western 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.). . . . . . . Redeker, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Reese v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 31 Rhodes v. Georgia Railroad & Richmond & Danville R. Co., Bain Ricketts v. Chesapeake & Ohio 524 555 Robbins, Southern Kansas R. Co. Parker v. Georgia Pac. R. Co., St Louis, Iron Mountain & South- ern R. Co. v. Worthen, (Ark.) 589 St. Paul City R. Co., Shacherl v., St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's Sidman v. Richmond & D. R. Co., (I. C. C.).. 35 306 Sims v. East & West R. Co. of Alabama, (Ga.).. Slate Creek Iron Co. v. Hall, (Ky.). 347 Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Lester, —, Peyton v., (La.)... Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex.)... 599 Thomas, Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v., (C. C.)..... Trammel, State ex rel,. v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co., (Mo.). 581 Trautwein, Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. Co. v., (N. J.). 187 Trenton Horse R. Co., Breeze v., (N. J.).... Twenty-Third St. R. Co., Mayor, etc., of City of New York v., (N. Y.)... Twiname, Citizens' Street R. Co. v., (Ind.) (Tex.).. .356, 368 (Tex.).. .346, 368, 381 550 122 ing Co., (Ga.). 490 V. (Ala.). Georgia Pacific R. Co., 278 640 New York Cent. & Hudson R. R. Co., (N. Y.)............ 354 227 V. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., (Minn.). Sobieski Co., (Ga.)... Wrightsville & Tennille R. (C. C.).. 380 320 (Minn.). St. Paul & D. R. Co., Souther land v. Wilmington & W. Kansas R. Co. v. Rob Southern Pacific R. Co., Kerigan State, to & Ohio R. Co. v., (Md.).. use of Wiley, Baltimore - ex rel. Trammel v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co., (Mo.).. —ex rel. Bell 7. Harshaw, (Wis.) 685 Watson v. St. Paul City R. Co. -International & Great North Johnson v.. ex (Tex.). rel. Wine v. Keokuk & Western R. Co., (Mo.)... of New Orleans & Texas R. Co. v. Mississippi, Louisville, (U.S.). V. St. Paul, Minneapolis & 36 Manitoba R. Co., (Minn.)...... 625 | Usher v., (Pa.).. Western & A. R. Co. v. Lewis, (Ga.)... Western North Carolina R. Co., 314 316 28 126 581 (Cal.) 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.). 363 172 212 194 694 West Jersey R. Co., Buchanan v. (N. J.)... 59 508 ..347, 369 212 558 636 THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RAILROAD CASES. VOLUME XLI. JORDAN v. 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, |