Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad v. Dixon
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Hon. T.- J. Wharton, Judge. In this action for the destruction of the appellee’s crops by hogs a jury was waived, and the court gave judgment against the appellant upon the following state of facts: When the land was wild, a right of way was purchased for the railroad. Afterward the appellee bought property on either side of this grant, and in 1853 began to deaden the forest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Hon. T.- J. Wharton, Judge. In this action for the destruction of the appellee’s crops by hogs a jury was waived, and the court gave judgment against the appellant upon the following state of facts: When the land was wild, a right of way was purchased for the railroad. Afterward the appellee bought property on either side of this grant, and in 1853 began to deaden the forest. He inclosed his clearing with a fence, and at his solicitation the appellant constructed cattle guards in its roadbed at the points where it entered and left the field.…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
No obligation rested on the railroad company to construct cattle gaps for the accommodation of the appellee. It was a mere favor to him that the gaps were made at his request. They were wholly for his advantage, and the favor done him by the company in making them and repairing them from time to time did not impose any obligation on the company to continue this course. The mistake of the appellee in supposing he had a right to have the cattle gaps kept in order by the appellant did not give him such right, and if the appellant thought itself bound to keep them up, its misapprehension did not…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Yazoo &. M. V. R. R. v. CrawfordMississippi Supreme Court · 1914
- Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad v. SpencerMississippi Supreme Court · 1894
- Southern Railway Co. v. MurrellMississippi Supreme Court · 1900
- Fairchild v. New Orleans & Northeastern RailroadMississippi Supreme Court · 1884