Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Yarbrough
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake. • Action by C. F. Yarbrough against tbe Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway'for overflowing plaintiff’s property by maintenance of an embankment. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and it transferred the cause, under Gen. Acts 1911, c. 449, § 6, to the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake. • Action by C. F. Yarbrough against tbe Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway'for overflowing plaintiff’s property by maintenance of an embankment. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and it transferred the cause, under Gen. Acts 1911, c. 449, § 6, to the Supreme Court. Count 2 avers, in effect, that the culvert or pipe leading through the embankment was insufficient to carry off the water when it rained, and on this occasion a heavy rain fell, and the said culvert being…
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, J. —
This is an action for damages for diversion of water by appellant’s railroad embankment, causing it to flow on the property of appellee. The case was tried on counts 2 and 3 of the complaint as amended. Appellant pleaded to count 2 in short by consent the general issue, with leave to offer evidence of any other defense. To count 3 the general issue is. pleaded, together with three special pleas, in substance as follows: (3) That the plaintiff acquired said property after said embankment had been constructed, and while it was being so maintained by defendant, with full knowledge of…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. WachterIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Savannah, Americus & Montgomery Railway v. BufordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. LancasterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Arndt v. City of CullmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. CrosbySupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. LittletonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Birmingham Stove & Range Co. v. VanderfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Gulf States Steel Co. v. LawSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Persons v. SummersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.