Tomlin v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway & Light Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Gourt. — Hon. R. P. 0 Howell, Judge. The opinion states the case. —
1DissentWeaver, J.
I can not agree to any further extension -of the doctrine approved in the case of Marshalltown v. Forney, above cited- — a decision which I regard unsound in principle and out of harmony with a great majority of the established precedents. Under the rule of the majority opinion, a railway company unwilling to treat with property owners and desiring to avoid payment of damages occasioned to abutting property by the appropriation of a street for its right of way has only to persuade a complaisant city council to- vacate the street, and make it a present of such way without cost to any one…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Lahr v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Adams v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Stanley v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Ridgway v. City of OsceolaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.