Patterson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 882A,4 Div. 882 |
| Citation | 204 Ala. 453,86 So. 20 |
| Parties | PATTERSON et al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Bill by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company against M.J Patterson and A.H. May, as Sheriff, and others, to enjoin respondents, Patterson and May, from taking up or otherwise interfering with certain track of the complainant, to ascertain the proper compensation, and to perpetually enjoin interference with the track upon payment of the compensation. From a decree overruling motions to dissolve the temporary injunction, but modifying the injunction by retaining it and ordering the complainant to institute condemnation proceedings within 30 days, and on their failure to do so permitting the respondents to renew their motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, respondents appeal, and complainant files a cross-appeal. Reversed and rendered on direct appeal.
Chapman & Lewis, of Dothan, for appellants and cross-appellees.
Farmer Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, and John R. Tyson, of Montgomery, for appellee and cross-appellant.
It is a well-recognized principle that in order to subject the property of another for public use under the doctrine of eminent domain, the proceedings must be as prescribed by our Constitution and statutes, yet we also have a well-established rule that, while a railroad company has no right to enter upon and take the lands of another without his consent or without condemnation proceedings and just compensation for same, if it does enter and construct its track upon the land of another, and the owner has knowledge that the company is proceeding to locate and construct its road on his land, and he allows it to spend large sums of money on improvements for such purpose, he will be estopped from ousting the company by ejectment, if the company is willing to then make just compensation, such as its taking may involve. This rule is, of course, founded upon an equitable estoppel; and, while it protects the railroad from being ousted it does not estop the owner from claiming a just compensation, or relieve the railroad from the payment of same as a condition precedent of enjoining the ouster at law. Southern R.R. v. Hood, 126 Ala. 312, 28 So. 662, 85 Am.St.Rep. 32, and cases there cited.
The facts in this case, as developed by the answer and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. SOUTHERN PRE. PAT. WKS.
...Ry. Co. v. Hood, 126 Ala. 312, 28 So. 662. That estoppel is the basis of the rule was expressly stated in Patterson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 204 Ala. 453, 86 So. 20: "It is a well-recognized principle that in order to subject the property of another for public use under the doctrine o......
-
Ex parte City of Bessemer
... ... transmission line. The petition of date of January 18, 1939, ... for condemnation was for a ... objections which should have been made before said award ... Patterson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 204 Ala ... 453, 86 So. 20; Louisville & ... ...
-
Montgomery v. Alabama Power Co.
... ... construction of a rural electric line in conformity with the ... provisions of the deed; the line had been ... state. In the case of Patterson et al. v. Atlantic Coast ... Line R. Co., 204 Ala. 453, 86 So. 20, in ... ...
-
Johnson v. Metro Land Co., L.L.C.
...contention overlooks a line of authority which has long been established in this state. In the case of Patterson et al. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 204 Ala. 453, 86 So. 20 [(1920)], in connection with a bill in equity this court, speaking through Anderson, C.J., "`It is a well-recognized......