McPheeters v. Merimac Bridge Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Land Court. This was an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien against the bridge of the Merimac Bridge Company. The defendants are James P. Langford, Jas. N. Stevenson, Jacob 0. Gremm and Henry Gremm, and the Merimac Bridge Company.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Land Court. This was an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien against the bridge of the Merimac Bridge Company. The defendants are James P. Langford, Jas. N. Stevenson, Jacob 0. Gremm and Henry Gremm, and the Merimac Bridge Company. The plaintiff alleged in his petition that while said defendants Langford and others were contractors performing certain work for the defendant, the Merimac Bridge Company, they became and were indebted to plaintiff in the snm of $728.48, for castings and materials sold, delivered and furnished, and for work and labor done and performed, &c. The…
1Opinion of the CourtSoott, Judge
A public bridge is a common highway. A private bridge is similar in its nature to a private right of way and is subject to most of its incidents. (Woolrych on Ways, 195.) The character of a bridge depends more upon the use that is made of it than upon the means by which it was erected. If individuals, for the right to take toll, will make a public highway, the mode of remuneration authorized will not deprive it of the character stamped upon it by the purposes to which it'is applied. The charter granted to the Merimac Bridge Company shows that the bridge authorized to bo built was a public…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Eufaula Water Co. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- City of Decatur v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Abercrombie v. ElySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Southern Electrical Supply Co. v. Rolla Electric Light & Power Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- State ex rel. Maggi v. LoomisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.