Romano v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COM'N v. Vaughey (Miss. 1978)
- Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Co. v. Moore (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 1970)
- Muse v. Mississippi State Highway Commission (Miss. 1958)
- Mantorville Railway & Transfer Co. v. Teunis Slingerland (Minn. 1907)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
We think it was error to overrule plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of the enhanced value of his intestate’s property “for warehouse purposes” by reason of the building of the side track. It could only induce the jury to think they might offset by enhanced values any damages they might find.
We think the refusal of the fourth instruction for the plaintiff was correct. As stated, it is confusing. There was only one track involved, and the statute of limitations would begin to run from the commencement of operations by the railroad company. The fifth instruction for the plaintiff should have been given.
The second instruction for the defendant was properly given. The third instruction for the defendant may or may not have been properly given. If the date in this record — January 11, 1901 — is the true date, it was error to give it. It takes six years from the date of the commencement of operations to bar such an action. The giving of the fourth instruction for the de
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.