Little Rock & Napoleon Railroad v. Little Rock, Mississippi River & Texas Railroad
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. David W. Carroll, Chancellor. Legislative action essential to exercise of railroad franchises. . The State v. B., C. & M. R. R., 25 Vt., 433; New-burg Turnpike v. Miller, 5 John. Chan., 101; Auburn v. Cato Plk Road, 9 N. Y., 444; McCandley’s Appeal, 70 Pa. St., 210 ; Atkinson v. M. & C. R. R., 15 Ohio St., 21. And when one grant only is made it is in its nature exclusive.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. David W. Carroll, Chancellor. Legislative action essential to exercise of railroad franchises. . The State v. B., C. & M. R. R., 25 Vt., 433; New-burg Turnpike v. Miller, 5 John. Chan., 101; Auburn v. Cato Plk Road, 9 N. Y., 444; McCandley’s Appeal, 70 Pa. St., 210 ; Atkinson v. M. & C. R. R., 15 Ohio St., 21. And when one grant only is made it is in its nature exclusive. Raritan & Delaware R. R. v. Delaware & Raritan R. R., 18 N. J. Eq., 568. And prior grant gives prior right of selecting land. Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., 4 Gill & John., 1. The act of…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
This was a suit in equity by the Little Rock and Napoleon Railroad company against the Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas railway, and Jared E. Redfield —the president — and Dudley E. Jones, Sol. F. Clark, S. L. Griffith, C. F. Penzel, Elisha Atkins, John H. Reed and E. Winchester — the directors thereof, to enjoin the said Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas railway from extending and building its railroad between the- city of Little Rock and the city of Pine Bluff.
The complaint, which was filed on the ninth day of February, 1880, alleged, in substance: that the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Williams v. McMillanOhio Supreme Court · 1849
- Zabriskie v. Cleveland, Columbus, & Cincinnati RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
- Kitchen v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Davenport Central Railway Co. v. Davenport Gas Light Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Road Improvement District No. 7 v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1926