Massachusetts C. R. Co. v. Boston, C. & F. R. Co.

Citation121 Mass. 124
PartiesMassachusetts Central Railroad Company v. Boston, Clinton and Fitchburg Railroad Company
Decision Date21 October 1876
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Worcester. Petition to the Superior Court under the St. of 1873, c. 261, for a jury to revise an award of damages made by the county commissioners to the respondent, upon its petition, by reason of the construction of the railroad of the petitioner.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., it was admitted by the petitioner that it had taken for its railroad a certain tract of land belonging to the respondent, and it was agreed that damages should be awarded for the same to the amount of one hundred and eight dollars. The railroad of the respondent had been in operation several years before the location of the petitioner's railroad, and crossed at grade a certain highway in the town of Berlin. The petitioner located its road over and across the Boston, Clinton and Fitchburg Railroad, near said grade crossing, and over and across the highway, and established the grade of its railroad about twenty feet above the railroad of the respondent and above the highway, crossing the railroad and highway by means of a bridge resting upon stone piers and abutments; one or more of the piers being upon the respondent's land near the grade crossing.

The respondent offered evidence, the form of which evidence, if competent, was not objected to, as follows: Until the erection of the piers by the petitioner, the respondent had operated its railroad, and had run trains across the grade crossing safely and without accident. The crossing was a reasonably safe one, and the view up and down the respondent's railroad was free and unobstructed to travellers upon the highway when approaching the crossing. No flagman had ever been employed at the crossing, and there had been no necessity for a flagman at the point, and no request had been made by any one for such flagman. By the erection of the piers the view of travellers on the highway up and down the respondent's railroad was greatly obstructed, and the crossing was thereby rendered unsafe and dangerous without a flagman, both to the public and to the respondent in the use of its road. The selectmen of Berlin by due process of law requested the respondent in writing to station a flagman at the crossing, stating in their request that the crossing had been rendered unsafe by reason of the erection of the piers and that their request was made by reason thereof. Upon application to the county commissioners by said selectmen the commissioners, after due notice to the respondent, but without notice to the present petitioner, decided that the stationing of such flagman was necessary for the security of the public, and the respondent thereupon, before the filing of the original petition to the county commissioners for the assessment of damages, stationed a flagman at the crossing and has ever since maintained one at great expense, and will be compelled to employ a flagman constantly in the future, by reason of the erection and maintenance of the piers. The respondent sought to recover damages by reason of the necessity of the employment of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • American Tobacco Company and American Car Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Diciembre 1912
    ... ... 418; City v ... Railway, 16 N.D. 313; Railway v. Chicago, 140 ... Ill. 309; Elliott on Roads (2 Ed.), secs. 779-80; Scanlan ... v. Boston, 140 Mass. 84; Railway v. State ex ... rel., 159 Ind. 510. (4) Railroad corporations, because ... of their public character, and because they ... The opinion in that ... case points out that the decisions of the Supreme Court of ... the State of Massachusetts, which apparently laid down a ... different doctrine, were founded upon a statute of that ... State, by which the expense of such crossings was ... ...
  • The Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad Company v. The Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1893
    ...111 Mo. 666; Mills on Eminent Domain, sec. 44a; Railroad v. Railroad, 105 Ill. 110; Railroad v. Railroad, 105 Ill. 388; Railroad v. Railroad, 121 Mass. 124; Railroad v. Railroad, 30 Ohio St. 604. For similar reasons the court committed no error in giving, of its own motion, the third instru......
  • Kansas City v. Kansas City Belt Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Marzo 1905
    ...Mayor of Bayonne, 51 N.J.L. 428; Railroad v. Mayor, etc., of Newark, 61 N.J.L. 80; Railroad v. Plymouth, 14 Gray (Mass.) 155; Railroad v. Railroad, 121 Mass. 124; Railroad Bloomington, 76 Ill. 447; Indianapolis v. Gas Co., 27 L.R.A. 514; Prairie County v. Fink, 65 Ark. 492. (2) The court er......
  • St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Fayetteville
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 27 Mayo 1905
    ...officers. Elliott, Roads & Streets, § 394; Wells, Em. Dom. 646. The evidence of C. R. Gray was properly excluded. Lewis, Em. Dom. § 489; 121 Mass. 124; 105 Ill. 388. It was proper to require railroad, at their own expense, to construct and maintain so much of the street crossing as falls wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT