Leggett v. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg Railroad
New York Supreme Court
An appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, at the Orleans circuit, for the sum of seventy-three dollars damages and costs, and from an order denying the defendant’s motion for á new trial founded on the judge’s minutes. The defendant is a corporation organized- under the generai railroad act. The line of its road is located over the plaintiff’s farm, and it acquired the right of way for its road-bed of the customary width.
Read the full summary
An appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, at the Orleans circuit, for the sum of seventy-three dollars damages and costs, and from an order denying the defendant’s motion for á new trial founded on the judge’s minutes. The defendant is a corporation organized- under the generai railroad act. The line of its road is located over the plaintiff’s farm, and it acquired the right of way for its road-bed of the customary width. One of the plaintiff’s fields, consisting of thirteen acres and used as a pasture, lies on the southwesterly side of the defendant’s lands…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The plaintiff’s demand for indemnity for the injury he has sustained by reason of the defendant’s neglect to erect a fence on the side of its road for the distance which it passes over his pasture field, is based upon the statute whichj imposes that duty upon the company. At common law, adjacent land-owners were not required to *314construct division fences for the convenience of each other and the protection of their crops growing thereon. The statute requiring railroad companies to erect and maintain fences on .the division line between its land and the adjacent owner, provides that “ every…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Corwin v. . the New-York and Erie Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Van Wyck v. SewardNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Peo. Ex Rel. Garbutt v. . R. and S.L.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Thomas v. . Utica Black River R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1884