Southern Railway Co. v. Harrell
Supreme Court of Georgia
Action for damages. Before Judge Smith. Lodge superior court. September term, 1897. The suit was for damages on account of the alleged failure of the railway company to maintain a cattle-guard. To the petition the defendant demurred on the grounds: (1) It sets forth no cause of action. (2) Defendant is under no legal duty to maintain a cattle-guard as claimed.
Read the full summary
Action for damages. Before Judge Smith. Lodge superior court. September term, 1897. The suit was for damages on account of the alleged failure of the railway company to maintain a cattle-guard. To the petition the defendant demurred on the grounds: (1) It sets forth no cause of action. (2) Defendant is under no legal duty to maintain a cattle-guard as claimed. (3) The petition does not show that plaintiff has properly complied with the law in reference to constructing, maintaining, or keeping in repair cattle-guards, so as to give him any right of action. (4) The alleged damages for loss of…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
Prior to the passage of the act of 1889, embodied in sections 2243 et seq. of the Civil Code, we are not aware of any statute imposing upon railroad companies in this State the duty of building or maintaining cattle-guards. The only law now upon the subject is that embraced in the sections above cited. Section 2243 requires a railroad company “to build and maintain at its own expense good and sufficient cattle-guards on each side of every public road or private way established *604pursuant to law, and on the dividing line of adjoining landowners where the railroad may cross such public roads,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rossignoll v. Northeastern RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
3Cited by3 opinions
- St. Landry Wholesale Mercantile Co. v. New Hampshire Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- Fenn v. Georgia Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. NannySupreme Court of Georgia · 1912