Legal Opinion

Fort Smith Suburban Railway Co. v. Maledon

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 7, 1906PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Styles T. Roive, Judge; 1. The record of the deed conveying right of way to the railway company was notice to appellee that it had acquired the right of way. Kirby’s Digest, § 762. Under the law the appellee could only recover the fair rental value of the land included in the right of way for the remaining period of his lease.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Styles T. Roive, Judge; 1. The record of the deed conveying right of way to the railway company was notice to appellee that it had acquired the right of way. Kirby’s Digest, § 762. Under the law the appellee could only recover the fair rental value of the land included in the right of way for the remaining period of his lease. He could not enhance or exaggerate his damages by following up the engineers and planting a crop where they had driven the location stakes for the line of railroad. 67 Ark. 375. If a party can, at a trifling…

1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.

This action was brought by Charles E. Maledon against the Ft. Smith Suburban Railway Company and Archer-Foster Construction Company. The plaintiff, after alleging'that he is in possession of certain lands as tenant, alleges in his complaint :

“That the Ft. Smith Suburban Railway Company has acquired a right of way over and across said land without the consent of this plaintiff, who owned a growing crop thereupon at the time of the acquisition of the right of way by said railway from the owner thereof. That the said railroad company has let or sublet the construction of its railroad across said…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smith v. Chicago, Clinton & Dubuque R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1874
  2. Ullman v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1877
  3. Downing v. C., R. I. & P. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
  4. Railway Co. v. KnottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lisko v. UhrenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API