Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. Ligon

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1896

Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. Ligon, 74 Miss. 176 (Miss. 1896)

Whitfield

Opinion of the Court

Whitfield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case chiefly relied on by counsel for appellant (Railroad Co. v. Williamson, Ind. App., 29 N. E., 455) has no application whatever. At page 460 the court says: “Buck did not own the land on the north side of the railroad, opposite the *179side track. The right of way did not separate his land into two parcels, and the gates were not put in for the purpose of enabling him to go from a tract of land on one side of the railroad to a tract on the other side. ” So of the other cases cited from Indiana. The doctrine of Railroad Co. v. Spencer, 72 Miss., 491, was thoroughly considered, and is reaffirmed. The appellee was entitled to' the crossing. See the following authorities: Thornt. R. R. Fences, secs. 257, 267-269, 281, 283-286, 289, 291, 292; Henderson v. Railroad Co., 48 Iowa, 216; Gray v. Railroad Co., 37 Iowa, 119; Railroad Co. v. Hughes, 2 Ind. App., 68; Ib., 28 N. E., 158. Appellee was interested. The right to the penalty accrued while he was in possession.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. W. J. Ligon
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Railroads. Farm crossing. Necessary plantation road. Code 1892, § 3561. A road connecting the dwelling house and the pasture land of a farm, through which a railway track runs, is a necessary plantation road within the meaning of $ 3561, code 1892, when its disuse would involve any considerable inconvenience or expense to the tenant in possession, and a failure of the railway company to maintain a crossing- for such road subjects it to the penalty of the statute, although there may be another crossing within the inclosed and cultivated land on the opposite side of the farm. 2. Same. Penalty for faitM'e to maintain ct'ossimg. Recovery by tenant. Expiration of lease pending suit. The right of the lessee of a farm, as “the person interested,” to recover of a railway company the penalty prescribed by $ 3561. code 1892, for its failure, during- his tenancy, to maintain a crossing for a necessary plantation road, is not impaired by the fact that, landing- suit, he has ceased to have any interest in the premises, as tenant or otherwise.