Act of April 4, 1868 (P. L. 58). Master and servant.
Code, sec. 1298. Precautions in running trains. 10.
Call Sess. 17th Leg., Gen. Laws passed at, p. 35. Delivery of goods.
Rev. Stat. sec. 1828-1836. Railroads upon and across highways. 263.
STATUTE OF LIMITATION. See STREETS AND HIGHWAYS.
Attachment. An order to stop is not available to secure the consignor
possession of goods if they have been attached in the hands of the
carrier, and if the carrier gives proper notice he is not responsible if
the goods are sold. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Davis (Pa.). 563.
Right of, not defeated by attachment by general creditor. 567 n.
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. See BRIDGES; CROSSINGS; STREET RAILWAYS.
Abutting owner. Construction of steam railroad in public street of city,
under legislative authority, does not give lot owner claim for compen-
sation unless he is deprived of reasonable use of street. Immaterial
whether fee in street is owned by city or abutting property owner.
Bolton v. Short Route R. Co. (Ky.). 256.
Abutting owner. Damages. Evidence of substantial injury and loss to
property caused by smoke and sparks of fire may be taken into con-
sideration. Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Gardner (Ohio). 243.
Abutting owner. Damages. Witnesses may testify as to the decrease in
the rents and rental value of the property by reason of the construc-
tion of the railroad although they did not know its market value be-
fore or since the building of the railroad when the evidence is prop-
erly qualified by the instructions given. Denver, etc., R. Co. v.
Bourne (Colo.). 227.
Immaterial whether he has fee or easement in street.
Abutting owner: in an action by, against a railroad company defendant
may show plaintiff's grantor consented that road might be constructed
along the street. Pratt v. Des Moines, etc., R. Co. (Iowa). 236.
Abutting owner. In action to recover special damages for the construc-
tion of a railway in street the plaintiff is not barred from recovery by
the fact that other property owners have been injured in the same
manner. Texarkana, etc., R. Co. v. Goldberg (Tex.). 240.
Abutting owner: it must appear to warrant a recovery by, that the ob-
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS-Continued.
struction complained of presents a physical disturbance of his right
so as to impair its use in the manner previously enjoyed and causes
peculiar damage to the property to which his right is appendant.
Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Eberle (Ind.). 220.
Abutting owner: on the trial of an action by, against a railroad, wit-
nesses cannot testify as to how much less per year was received as
rent for the property affected than before the track was laid in front
of it or give opinions concerning the amount of damages sustained.
Columbus, etc., R. Co. v. Gardner (Ohio). 243.
Abutting owner. Railroad company constructing railroad in public street
is liable to the owner of property abutting on such streets, notwith-
standing ordinance authorizing it, for the actual diminution of the
market value of the property. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Bourne (Colo.).
Abutting owner. Under Iowa Code there can be but one recovery by an
abutting owner and that in favor of the owner who owned the prop.
erty when the road was built, or the assignee of his claim. Pratt v.
Des Moines, etc., R. Co. (Iowa). 236.
Abutting owner whose title extends to middle of highway cannot main-
tain action for unlawful obstruction of opposite side caused by em-
bankment when the injury is the same in kind as that suffered by the
community in general. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Eberle (Ind.). 220.
Changing grade. Street railroad company may change grade under au-
thority of city council and commit no trespass. Briggs v. Lewiston,
etc., R. Co. (Me.). 168.
Change of grade: under Missouri statute abutting owner may maintain
action against cable street railway company for. Injury caused by.
Measure of damage. Sheehy v. Kansas City Cable Road Co. (Mo.). 233.
Crossings. Authority to impose on railroad the duty of making bridges
and crossings over new streets and highways, 276 n.
Crossings. Florida statute concerning the crossing of railroads and high-
ways construed. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v. State (Fla.). 191.
Crossings. Grant of power to cut through highway is impliedly attended
by obligation to furnish safe crossing. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v. State
(Fla.). 191.
Crossing. Gravel road. Where a plank road across which a railroad com-
pany is given the right of way to lay its track without compensation
forfeits its rights and a gravel road is maintained on the same high-
way, the railroad company cannot assert same rights against the
gravel road as it could have asserted against the plank road. Indian-
apolis, etc., Gravel Road v. Belt R. Co. (Ind.). 173.
Crossings. In estimating the damages of a railway company for land
taken in laying out a way across its track expenses of defending it-
self against claims for accidents are not to be taken into account.
Boston & Maine R. Co. v. County Com'rs (Me.). 271.
Crossings. Laying out highway across railroad track. Damages recover-
able. 278 n.
Crossings. Obligation of railroad company to restore highway and keep
in repair. Liability for injuries caused by defective crossing. 136 n.
Crossings: provisions of Florida statute as to, were intended to preserve
to the public the old highway on the original surface or on a new
surface on a new highway of a new line. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v.
State (Fla.). 191.
Crossings. Railroad having power to cross street, manner of doing so
is discretionary. 181 n.
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS-Continued.
Crossings. Railroad may be compelled to bear expense of constructing
crossing where highway crosses its track although its charter provides
that it is not to be altered or amended, and the statute making such
provision does not impair the obligation of any contract with such
company. Boston & Maine R. Co. v. County Com'rs (Me.). 271.
Crossing. Right to cross without compensation: statute conferring, refers
to ordinary highways and does not embrace road of a private corpora-
tion. Indianapolis, etc., Gravel Road v. Belt R. Co. (Ind.). 173.
Crossings. Statute requiring that expense of building so much of the
town way as is within the limits of a railroad where the way crosses
at grade shall be borne by the railroad company is constitutional.
Boston & Maine R. Co. v. County Com'rs (Me.). 271 n.
Damages. Constitutional provisions. Taking. 253 n.
Damages for the occupation of streets by railways. 251.
Damages for the occupation of streets by railways: measure of. 252 n.
Damages. Instruction that in determining the damages the jury may con-
sider the nature of the property and the tendency to great fluctua-
tions in value, and that it must appear that the construction of de-
fendant's track had been the sole cause of depreciation, is erroneous
in an action by abutting owner against a railway company. Denver,
etc., R. Co. v. Schmitt (Colo.). 231.
Damages. In an action for damages for the depreciation of the value of
property, by the construction of a railway in the street where there is
a conflict in the evidence as to the amount of depreciation of the
property, and the jury view the premises, verdict will not be set aside
as excessive. Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Bourne (Colo.). 227.
Damages. When right of railroad company to acquire title as result of
suit is recognized, damages for permanent depreciation of property
may be recovered; but where action is in trespass and denies defend-
ant's right to continue the obstruction or to acquire title, only such
damages as had accrued at the time the action was commenced are
recoverable. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Eberle (Ind.). 220.
Damages. Where abutting owner. testifies as to the value of the property,
and that after the construction of the railway it would not sell at all,
and that the rental value had decreased, it is irrelevant on the cross-
examination to ask him what he paid for the property in 1874. Den-
ver, etc., R. Co. v. Schmitt (Colo.). 231.
Diversion of trade: compensation for. 254 n.
Elevated road. It is not essential to the right of railroad to elevate its
track above street that the word "elevated" should appear in the
charter or that the right should be expressly granted; but if power
was questionable, subsequent amendment to charter recognizing prior
city ordinance by which tracks were authorized to be elevated places
matter beyond doubt. Bolton v. Short Route R. Co. (Ky.). 256.
Fee in the streets of the city of Columbus is in the State, and the munic-
ipal authorities have no power to have obstructions placed in the
streets without legislative acts being passed for that purpose. Kava-
nagh v. Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Ga.). 267.
Grant of right to build railroad in street. What it carries with it. 283 n.
Grant of right to construct road along highway is not a power to destroy
highway unless language of the grant shows unmistakable intention
of granting such power. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v. State (Fla.).
Gravel road: railroad company laying its tracks across, without consent
and without proceedings to condemn. Gravel-road company has right
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS-Continued.
of action, and is entitled at least to nominal damages. Indianapolis,
etc., R. Co. v. Belt R. Co. (Ind.). 173.
Indictment. See Obstruction, infra.
Injunction. If unauthorized occupation of street is not susceptible of
being adequately compensated by damages at law, or is such that from
its continuance a permanent mischief must occasion a constantly re-
curring grievance, equity will enjoin. Kavanagh . Mobile, etc., R.
Co. (Ga.).
Injunction is the proper remedy for the unauthorized occupation of.
270 n.
Injunction: private owner cannot obtain, unless he suffer special damage.
270 n.
Injunction to compel restoration. Where action was begun in January,
1886, and destruction began in 1884, and plaintiff had requested the
company to restore highway to its former state, and that request had
not been complied with, plaintiff shows that ample time to restore
highway had elapsed. Jamestown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Wis.).
263.
Injunction. Town which has had imposed upon it by law duty to repair
highways may maintain action for injunction to compel railroad
company which has practically destroyed a highway to restore it to
its former state of usefulness. Jamestown v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.
(Wis.). 263.
Nuisance in cases of, judgment should be adapted to the nature of the
nuisance of which the defendant was convicted. Judgment should
not be inconsistent with the legal rights of the party convicted, what-
ever that may be. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v. State (Fla.). 191.
Nuisance. Unauthorized occupation of a street in a city by railroad track
with cars and engine amounts to public nuisance; and if abutting
owner suffers special damages therefrom, he is entitled to maintain an
action. Kavanagh v. Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Ga.). 267.
Obstruction. Florida statute giving railway companies power to con-
struct roads along highways does not give power to block up and
obstruct the same. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v. State (Fla.). 191.
Obstruction. Indictment: allegation in, held equivalent to allegation
that the road was an established railway under statute punishing ob-
struction and providing for its removal. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v.
State (Fla.). 191.
Obstruction. Indictment charging that railway has been unnecessarily
and unreasonably obstructed omitting to charge that it was wilfully
done is insufficient. Savannah R. Co. v. State (Fla.). 182.
Obstruction. Indictment. Florida statute prescribing duties of railroad
company as to highways does not affect rules of pleading concerning,
further than to require that the act charged shall appear to be an act
which is not authorized by such statute. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v.
State (Fla.).
Obstruction. Indictment. Florida statute to prevent obstruction of high-
ways changes the common law by requiring that the obstruction
should be removed to render it indictable. Savannah R. Co. v. State
(Fla.). 182.
Obstruction. Indictment. Neglect to keep bridge in repair across cut
made by railroad company so that travel is obstructed upon the high-
way is indictable. New York, etc., R. Co. v. State (N. J.). 186.
Obstruction. Indictment of railroads for non-repair or obstruction of
highways. 199 n.
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS-Continued.
Obstruction. Ordinance prohibiting the obstruction of streets is within
the municipal power, although the city had already passed an ordi-
nance permitting a railroad to appropriate certain streets, when such.
ordinance merely made provision for a joint use with the public
adopting other modes of travel. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Belleville
(Ill.). 278.
Obstruction. Indictment showing complete obstruction of highway
against travel is good in law. No such privilege is given by statute
to railroad companies. Palatka, etc., R. Co. v. State (Fla.). 191.
Obstruction. Where a railroad relies upon an ordinance vacating a street
in an action against it by a municipal corporation for obstructing such
street, it must be presumed to have known of the invalidity of the
ordinance relied upon, if it was not passed by a three-fourths major-
ity of the council as required by statute. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Belleville (Ill.). 278.
Obstruction. Indictment. Where the obstruction for which a railway is
indicted is one whose illegality is attributable to the manner in which
the railway has been constructed upon the highway, and upon con-
viction the judgment is so framed as to require an absolute removal of
the road-bed from the highway, and not permit the company to abate
the nuisance, it is erroneous and should be set aside. Palatka, etc.,
R. Co. v. State (Fla.). 191.
Obstruction. Indictment.
Word "wilful" in statute relating to indict-
ment for the obstruction of highways implies legal malice, evil in-
tent, or the absence of reasonable ground for the accused to believe
that the act charged was lawful. Savannah R. Co. v. State (Fla.).
Obstruction: railroad company causing, in violation of statute duty can-
not say that it did not anticipate any injury resulting from such un-
lawful act. Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. Carvener (Ind.). 134.
Permission to use streets: what amounts to. Charter construed. 270 n.
Side-tracks in street. An act of the legislature authorizing the connection
of two roads by extending their tracks through a city's streets, pro-
vided the people consent, and the people vote "connection," the city
council only submitting the question of allowing connection by a
single track, the railroad company is not authorized to lay side tracks
in a street. Kavanagh v. Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Ga.). 267.
Statute of limitation. Where abutting owner's right of action depends
entirely upon statute, and the owner has no title whatever in the
street, and such damages have not been ascertained at the start, an
action therefor is barred after five years. Pratt v. Des Moines R. Co.
(Iowa). 236.
Switch-rail. Land-owner who has released to owner right of way in the
street to be occupied by one track cannot maintain injunction to pre-
vent railroad from laying additional rail from projecting ends of the
ties upon which the main track is laid. Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Cal-
vert (Ind.). 170.
Tunnel. Authority to tunnel under street implied from grant and neces-
sity. 262 n.
Underground railways. A railroad confined within the limits of the city
and proposed to be built exclusively under the surface of the streets
thereof is a street railway within the meaning of article 3, section 18,
of New York constitution relating to the construction of street rail-
roads. In re New York Dist. R. Co. (N. Y.). 202.
Underground railways. As applicable to such a road, the provisions of
|