Reynolds v. Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court. Carroll D. Wood, Judge. 1. The court erred in permitting the company to dismiss its suit. The suit is for the sole purpose of fixing the compensation to- be paid the owner for the right of way. The right of the company to condemn, and of the owner to compensation, cannot be contested; it is only the manner of condemning and the amount of compensation that can be contested. 43 Ark.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court. Carroll D. Wood, Judge. 1. The court erred in permitting the company to dismiss its suit. The suit is for the sole purpose of fixing the compensation to- be paid the owner for the right of way. The right of the company to condemn, and of the owner to compensation, cannot be contested; it is only the manner of condemning and the amount of compensation that can be contested. 43 Ark. Ill, ,120 ; Beach on Railway Raw, 776; 44 Ark. 264. 2. Reynolds was entitled to the deposit, and the court should have so ordered. The constitution provides that compensation ■ must…
1Opinion of the Court
• Fletcher, Special Judge.
This was a proceeding by the Louisiana, Arkansas & Missouri Railway Company .against D. H. Reynolds, in the Chicot circuit court, to .condemn a right of way over his lands. After the railway company had, in compliance with an order of the .circuit judge in vacation, deposited $2000, subject to the order of the court, in a bank at Little Rock, to secure Reynolds for any damages which might accrue to him on account of the right of way, it filed a motion •for leave to dismiss the proceeding, and to have the .amount deposited in bank refunded to it. This motion was…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Boom Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Stacey v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Carson v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1880
- Sherwood v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Bergman v. St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's Falls RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Selle v. City of FayettevilleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Housing Authority of Little Rock v. RochelleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. FaisstSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Pine Bluff & Western Railway Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Hughes Tool Company v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1962
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.