Reichert v. St. L. & S. Fr. Ry.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court, Ft. Smith District. Jno. S. Little, Judge. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of defendant’s answer. The company constructed its track without the consent of the property owners, without proceedings of condemnation, or making compensation ; the city ordinance was void; nor did the company get the consent of two-thirds of the property owners as required bylaw. (Mansf.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court, Ft. Smith District. Jno. S. Little, Judge. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of defendant’s answer. The company constructed its track without the consent of the property owners, without proceedings of condemnation, or making compensation ; the city ordinance was void; nor did the company get the consent of two-thirds of the property owners as required bylaw. (Mansf. Dig., sec. 5471.') The legislature could not authorize the passage of such an ordinance as was passed by the council. The owner of an abutting lot on a…
1Opinion of the CourtHemingway, J.
The appellants are the owners of certain lots in Fort Smith that abut on Ozark street. In 1883 the appellee constructed its-railroad along the centre of the street, and since then has ysed it in running its trains.
The appellants owning the lots and therefore to the middle of the street, brought this action to recover possession of that part of the street occupied by the appellee’s road bed.
The appellee answered in five paragraphs. The appelant demurred to the answer, and the court overruled The demurrer to the third and fourth paragraphs ; the appellants “elected to stand on their demurrer’ ’…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Ford v. Chicago & North Western Rail RoadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- New Orleans & Selma Railroad v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Indianapolis, Bloomington & Western Railroad v. HartleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Imlay v. Union Branch RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Brusha Et Ux. v. Board of Education of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- McLain v. KeelSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Gram Construction Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Batesville & Winerva Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.