Massachusetts Central Railroad v. Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg Railroad
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Boston & Albany Railroad v. City of Cambridge (Mass. 1893)
- Cleveland v. City Council of Augusta (Ga. 1897)
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. City of Milwaukee (Wis. 1897)
- Union Elevator Co. v. Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad (Mo. 1896)
- National Docks & New Jersey Junction Connecting Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad (N.J. 1894)
- Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railroad (Mo. 1893)
- Valentino v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1952)
- Cairo, Truman & Southern Railroad v. Arkansas Short Line (Ark. 1926)
- McGuire v. Halloran (Iowa 1920)
- Alton & Southern Railroad v. Vandalia Railroad (Ill. 1916)
- Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Moosehead Telephone Co. (Me. 1910)
- Detroit, Ft. Wayne & Belle Isle Railway v. Commissioner of Railroads (Mich. 1901)
- City of Albia v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. (Iowa 1897)
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Bridgeport Traction Co. (Conn. 1895)
- Tyler v. Old Colony Railroad (Mass. 1892)
- State ex rel. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. District Courtw (Minn. 1889)
- Central Railroad v. Mayor of Bayonne (N.J. 1889)
- Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad v. Detroit & Bay City Railroad (Mich. 1887)
- Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad (Mich. 1887)
- Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. Peoria & Farmington Railway Co. (Ill. 1882)
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Joliet, Lockport & Aurora Railway Co. (Ill. 1882)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
A railroad corporation, across whose road another railroad or a highway is laid out, has the like right as all individuals or bodies politic and corporate, owning lands or easements, to recover damages for the injury occasioned to its title or right in the land occupied by its road, taking into consideration any fences or structures upon the land, or changes in its surface, absolutely required by law, or in fact necessary to be made by the corporation injured, in order to accommodate its own land to the new condition. Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 3 Cush. 25, 58. Old Colony Railroad v. Plymouth, 14 Gray, 155. Grand Junction Railroad v. County Commissioners, 14 Gray, 553.
But it is not entitled to damages for the interruption and inconvenience occasioned to its business, nor for the increased liability to damages from accidents, nor for increased expense for ringing the bell, nor for the risk of being ordered by the county commissioners, when in their judgment the safety and convenience of the public may require it, to provide additional safeguards for travellers crossing its railroad. Proprietors of Looks Canals v. Nashua & Lowell Railroad, 10 Cush. 385, 392. Boston & Worcester Railroad v. Old Colony Railroad, 12 Cush. 605, 611; and 3 Allen, 142,146. Old Colony Railroad v. Plymouth, 14 Gray, 155.
The damages sought to be recovered by the Boston, Clinton and Fitchburg Railroad Company are not for any change required in the condition of its land, or in the structures thereon, but for the expenses of maintaining a flagman, alleged to be necessary to guard against the greater liability to accidents, oo
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.