Louisville & N. R. Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 17 March 1917
• Citation: 193 S.W. 113
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

193 S.W. 113

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 17, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumner County; W. L. Cook, Judge.

The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company was convicted of violating a statute, as to maintenance of grade crossings, and appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. H. Swiggart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State. Keeble & Seay, of Nashville, for Railroad Co.

CLARK, Special Judge.

Plaintiff in error, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, was indicted in the criminal court of Sumner county for "failing to grade to a level with the rails of said railroad, and to keep in repair the public road crossing at a point near the depot of said railroad company where said railroad intersects the road leading from Hendersonville to Shackle Island, for a distance of 10 feet on each side of said railroad track." There was a trial before the court and jury, a verdict of guilty and a fine of $5 was assessed by the trial judge. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and plaintiff in error appealed to this court, and assigns three errors.

There is but one question involved, and that is the construction of chapter 356 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1899, which act provides:

"That every company or corporation or person operating a line of railroad within the state of Tennessee shall be required to grade to a level with the rails of said railroad and to keep in repair every public road crossing such railroad for a distance of ten (10) feet on each side of such railroad track and between the rails thereof: Provided, That the provisions of this act shall not apply within the limits of any city, taxing district, or incorporated town."

It is the insistence of the railroad company that, if the approach to the crossing is on an incline, the law is complied with if the crossing is graded to a level with the rails at the point of contact, and it denies that the crossing must be graded to a level with the rails horizontally for a distance of 10 feet on each side of the railroad track. The state insists that the meaning of the statute is that every point on the crossing and for a distance of 10 feet on each side of the tracks shall be on a level with the rails of the railroad, and that that part of the crossing lying between the rails shall also be on a level with the rails.

By the Acts of 1889, c. 119, it is provided:

"That all persons, companies, corporations, or syndicates, owning or operating a railroad or railroads in the state of Tennessee, be required to make and furnish good and sufficient crossings on the public highways crossed by them, and keep same in lawful repair at their own expense."

Both of the acts above referred to were before this court in the case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. State, reported in 128 Tenn. (1 Thompson) 172, 159 S. W. 601. In that case it was insisted by the railroad company that the act of 1889 was repealed by the later act of 1899. The decision of the court was against that insistence, and it was held that the act of 1899 was supplementary of and auxiliary to the act of 1889. It was also held in that case that the word "crossing," as applied to the intersection of a common highway and a railroad and as used in the earlier act of 1889, means the entire structure including the necessary approaches to the railroad, though a part may be outside of the railroad's right of way. So it appears that before and without the act of 1899 railroad companies were required to make good and sufficient crossings on the public highways crossed by them and to keep the same in good repair, and that the act of 1899 is supplementary of and auxiliary to the former act. Construed as the railroad company would have it, the statute would add nothing to the provisions of the earlier statute of 1889. It is obvious that a good and sufficient crossing could not be provided unless the crossing be brought to a level with the rails at the point of contact with the rails, since otherwise it would be impracticable for heavily loaded vehicles to cross over the rails, and, if the later statute of 1899 be construed as the railroad company insists it should be, no additional requirement would be placed upon the railroad company from that contained in the act of 1889, and the words "for a distance of ten feet on each side of such railroad track" would mean nothing. It would be a futile requirement to...