(DOWNLOAD) "St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Wallace" by Supreme Court of Arkansas ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Wallace
- Author : Supreme Court of Arkansas
- Release Date : January 08, 1950
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
Appellees, owners of 11 acres of land with a dwelling thereon adjoining appellant's right-of-way, brought this suit to recover damages in the amount of $1,000 for the closing, or obstructing, of a road crossing over appellant's railroad and right-of-way leading to appellees' property in the town of Buckner, Arkansas. Appellant denied any liability. On a jury trial, and at the close of all the testimony, the court, on its own motion, and over appellant's objections and exceptions, instructed the jury, as a matter of law, that from the evidence adduced, appellees had, in effect, by long continued adverse use of the crossing in question, acquired a prescriptive right in said crossing. The Instruction (No. 1) contained this recital: ""Gentlemen of the Jury, this suit is brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant, railroad company, for what the plaintiffs allege was the wrongful act of the railroad company in making unfit for use a certain crossing that had been used by the plaintiff and his tenants and others desiring to use it for a long period of years. There isn't any evidence that it was a public crossing as the terms is commonly used or that it was a private crossing as the term is used by the railroad company, but all the evidence is to the effect that this place on the railroad right-of-way was usable by the plaintiff and by his tenants and by others desiring to go across the railroad at that point for a long period of years, and that, beginning in 1922 or thereabouts, the railroad company for more than twenty years has maintained that spot as a crossing. . . . That presents an issue to the court as to whether or not this suit could be maintained by the plaintiffs. The defendant, railroad company, has defended the suit so far as that feature is concerned on the ground that such use was with its permission, and it, therefore, could withdraw that permission at any time [217 Ark Page 280] it saw fit. The plaintiffs contend . . . in view of the fact there was no other means of ingress and egress to such premises, the plaintiffs' sole and only method of going to and from that place is across this place, the court is inclined to the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover in this case.""