McKee v. C., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Company's Receiver
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 40 — -PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Under the provisions of the charter under which appellee was operating, it was the duty of the company to erect fences and cattlegaps at all points where it might be necessary.
Read the full summary
Case 40 — -PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Under the provisions of the charter under which appellee was operating, it was the duty of the company to erect fences and cattlegaps at all points where it might be necessary. See Acts of 1871-2, page 23. 2. The fences and cattleguards erected by appellee had been there for about twenty years, and appellant had been permitted to enjoy and use them to enclose his farm for all that time, and had acquired a' right that appellee could not divest him of without giving notice as required by the statutes. Kentucky Statutes, secs.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
nELivEUEn the opinion oe the ootjbt.
By section 1790, Kentucky Statutes, it is made the duty of railroad companies and of owners of lands adjoining the company’s right of way to construct and maintain, except in specified eases,-a good and lawful fence to the extent of one-half each along the division line of the right of way and the land of adjoining owners; and by section 1793 of the. *255statutes it is provided: “That all corporations and persons owning or controlling or operating railroads as aforesaid shall erect and maintain cattle guards at all terminal points ■of fences…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Parrish v. Louisville & N. R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Payton v. Louisville & N. R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. DurbinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Lexington & Eastern Railway Co. v. RussellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Mansfield v. Frankfort & Cincinnati Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921