Louisville v. Soltweddle

• Decision Date: 12 December 1888
• Citation: 19 N.E. 111,116 Ind. 257
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Soltweddle.

116 Ind. 257

19 N.E. 111

Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co.

v.Soltweddle.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

December 12, 1888.

Appeal from circuit court, Lake county; E. C. Field, Judge.

Ejectment by Henry C. Soltweddle against the Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Company for a certain strip of land in front of plaintiff's lot in Fayette street, in the city of Hammond, Lake county, and for damages Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

George R. Eldridge, George W. Easley, and Bayless & Russell, for appellant.

Mitchell, J.

Soltweddle sued the railway company in ejectment to recover possession of real estate, and also to recover damages for injuries occasioned by the construction and operation of the company's said road over the plaintiff's land. The action was commenced on the 27th day of March, 1885, and such proceedings were had as that on the 25th day of May, 1885, judgment was rendered in the Lake circuit court in favor of the plaintiff. The court made an order directing that a writ issue to the sheriff of Lake county, commanding him to put the railway company out and put the plaintiff into possession of the land described in the complaint. It was further ordered and adjudged that the defendant pay the plaintiff $175 as damages. The question is presented whether or not, under the pleadings and evidence, the judgment can be maintained. We are not favored with a brief or other argument on appellee's behalf. Recent decisions of this court settle the question conclusively in the negative. It appeared in evidence that at the time the action was commenced the plaintiff was the owner of lot No. 33, in one of the additions to the city of Hammond, in Lake county, and that the front of his lot abutted on Fayette street. In December, 1883, the railroad company, whether with or without the consent of the municipal authorities does not appear, constructed its road in such a manner as that its line ran diagonally across Fayette street, in front of the north-east corner of the plaintiff's lot. The purpose of the action was to eject the railroad company from, and to recover possession of, so much of the street occupied by the company's track as lay in front of the plaintiff's lot, and to recover damages for the obstruction of the street, and for injury to the plaintiff's property, occasioned by the construction and operation of the road. There was no dispute but that the road had been fully completed and put into operation more than a year...