Kearney v. Central Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 229, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Sept. T., 1891, 'No. 407, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for injuries to land. Before Edwards, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff’s land was injured by water thrown upon it from the Lackawanna river by reason of the defective construction of a railroad bridge.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 229, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Sept. T., 1891, 'No. 407, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for injuries to land. Before Edwards, J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff’s land was injured by water thrown upon it from the Lackawanna river by reason of the defective construction of a railroad bridge. It appeared that the bridge in question was built by the Wilkes-Barre & Scranton Railway Company, and that after it had been fully completed and constructed it had been leased to the defendant, the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
It is very clear that the injury complained of by plaintiff did not result from the operation of the road by the defendant who was merely the lessee thereof. If he sustained any actionable injury it must have resulted from the construction of the bridge, etc., and not from the operation of the railroad merely. The *364bridge was not built by defendant company, but by another railroad company. The learned trial judge rightly held that there could be no recovery against the defendant.
There is nothing in either of the specifications that calls for discussion. They are all dismissed and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Marshall v. Wichita & Midland Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- City of New Orleans v. Louisiana Savings Bank & Safe Deposit Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1879