Dubach v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.
Citation | 89 Mo. 483,1 S.W. 86 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Decision Date | 07 June 1886 |
Parties | DUBACH v. HANNIBAL & ST. J. R. CO. |
Thomas H. Bacon, for respondent, David Dubach. G. W. Easley, for appellant, Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.
By amendment to the charter of the Hannibal & St. Joe Railroad Company, approved March 3, 1855, the company was authorized to build its road over streets, alleys, and wharves, in any town or village, corporate or not, but required the company so to construct the road "as not to hinder or prevent the public from using the same." Collier street, in the city of Hannibal, was dedicated as a street, and the railroad company laid down its track on that street. Prior to the laying of the track in the street there were buildings on either side of the street, but it was graded by the defendant company nearly its width. At first defendant laid but one track; but after the plaintiff purchased his lot fronting on the street, and used by him as a lumber yard, the defendant laid a side track in the street about the year 1866. The main track was south of the center of Collier street, and the greater part of the street was north of the north rail of the track. The switch was laid north of the center of the street. Some time in the year 1882 the defendant made a contract with the Hannibal Transfer Company, giving to that company the use of defendant's tracks between the Mississippi river and the yards for taking out cribs of lumber on cars, and, in order to enable the transfer company to use cars with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Canady v. Coeur d'Alene Lumber Co.
...... dedicated as a street, as will destroy it as a thoroughfare. for the public use. ( Dubach v. Hannibal, 89 Mo. 483,. 1 S.W. 86; Belcher Sugar Ref. Co. v. St. Louis Grain El. Co., 82 Mo. 124; Smith v. McDowell ex rel. Hall, 148. Ill. ......
-
Seibel-Suessdorf Copper v. Manufacturers' Railway Company
...... will destroy the street as a public thoroughfare. Knapp. v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 35; Lockwood v. Railroad, . 122 Mo. 86; Dubach v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 483;. Brown v. Railroad, 137 Mo. 536; Swinhart v. Railroad, 207 Mo. 435; Pepper v. Railroad, 113. Tenn. 53. (11) ...Joe R. R. Co., 89 Mo. 483, the. defendant railway company maintained and operated its main. track along Collier street in the city of Hannibal. The track. was south of the center of. [130 S.W. 297] . the street, the greater part of the street being north of the. north rail of the track. ......
-
The State ex rel. St. Louis Underground Service Company v. Murphy
...... public use other than that of ordinary travel by pedestrians. and vehicles is ultra vires and void. Knapp & Co. v. Railroad, supra ; Dubach v. Railroad , 89 Mo. 483; Belcher, etc., Co. v. Elevator. Co. , 82 Mo. 121; Schopp v. St. Louis,. supra ; Glaessner v. Brewing Ass'n ,. 100 ......
-
General Elec. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co.
......109; Rigney. v. City of Chicago 102 Ill. 72; Ninth Ave. R. Co. v. New York El. R. Co., 7 Daly, 174; Bridge Co. v. Summers, 13 W.Va. 476; Dubach v. Railway Co.,. 89 Mo. 483, 1 S.W. 86; McElroy v. Kansas City (C.C.). 21 F. 257; Pappenheim v. Railway Co., 128 N.Y. 436,. 28 N.E. 518, 13 L.R.A. ......