Mattice v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Delaware District Gowrt.- — 'Hon. Franklin C. Platt, Judge. Action of mandamus to compel the defendant to make an adequate crossing over its road. Judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.—
1Opinion of the CourtSherwin, J.
1. Railroads: crossings. The plaintiff is the owner of land on both sides of the defendant’s railway; his land on one side thereof having been purchased after he acquired the land on the other side, and after the construction of the road. There is no crossing on his land and to reach that on the north side of the track he is compelled to go west eighty rods to a north and south public highway, then.across the track and east eighty rods. This action was brought to compel a crossing under the provisions of section 2022 of the Code which is as follows: “ When any person owns land on both sides…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. Denver & Rio Grande Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Miller v. Rutland & Washington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
- Schrimper v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Smith v. HallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Farley v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Town of Alvord v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Michalek v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway & Light Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1915