Hahn & Carter v. Gould Southwestern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. „ Appellants, plaintiffs below, instituted this suit against the appellee, defendant, alleging that they had a contract for digging a ditch with the Karsh Lake Drainage District; that “it became necessary to carry one of the drainage ditches through the track of the defendant, and the directors of the district and the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to permit the ditch to be constructed…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. „ Appellants, plaintiffs below, instituted this suit against the appellee, defendant, alleging that they had a contract for digging a ditch with the Karsh Lake Drainage District; that “it became necessary to carry one of the drainage ditches through the track of the defendant, and the directors of the district and the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to permit the ditch to be constructed through its track, the same to be bridged at the expense of the defendant, as provided in section 28 of the act,…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts). The question is, Was appellee liable to appellant for the expense of installing a new crossing for appellee’s railroad over the ditch which appellant was under contract to construct?
Section 28 of the General Drainage Act of 1909, Act 279, under the authority of which the drainage district and appellant entered into the contract for digging the ditch, provides in part as follows:
“Such ditches shall also be carried under or through any railroad track or tramway, and the owner thereof shall have no claim for damages on that account, but shall bridge such ditch…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wabash Ry. Co. v. South Daviess County Drainage Dist.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- Road Improvement District No. 7 v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2004