Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson

Citation34 Ind.App. 324,72 N.E. 666
Decision Date16 December 1904
Docket NumberNo. 4,973.,4,973.
PartiesPITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. WILSON et al.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Blackford County; E. C. Vaughn, Judge.

Action by James W. Wilson and another against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

G. E. Ross, for appellant. W. J. Houck, Waltz & Secrest, and W. M. Amsden, for appellees.

BLACK, J.

In the first specification in the appellant's assignment of errors it is sought to question the action of the court below “in overruling the demurrer to the third paragraph of the amended complaint,” and in the second specification the appellant assigns error “in overruling the demurrer to the fourth paragraph of the amended complaint.” The court sustained a demurrer to the first and second paragraphs of the complaint. The demurrer which was overruled, omitting the title and the signature, was as follows: “The defendant demurs to the plaintiffs' third and fourth paragraphs of complaint, and, for cause of demurrer, says said amended paragraphs of complaint do not, nor does either paragraph thereof, state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” The demurrer was addressed to the two paragraphs jointly, and an assignment of error purporting to question the action of the court in overruling the demurrer as to one of the paragraphs does not present any matter for decision here.

It is also assigned that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial. The appellees, James W. Wilson and Catherine Crumley, sought damages for the destruction of a private crossing from the southern portion of their farm over the appellant's railway to the northern portion of the farm, basing their right to such crossing upon a provision in a deed of conveyance of the railroad's right of way, 80 feet in width, through the lands, to the appellant's grantor, another railroad company; the appellees holding, subject to the right of the railroad company, as tenants in common in equal shares; Catherine, one of the grantors in the deed, having her portion as an heir of her father, and James having his portion under a conveyance from another grantor in the deed, holding as heir of the same father. The land in question consisted of 120 acres, over which the railroad ran, dividing the land into portions about equal in size; the buildings being upon the portion south of the railroad, and the equal portion north of the railroad being the most fertile and valuable part of the land. By the deed executed in 1883 the grantors therein conveyed and warranted the strip of land 80 feet in width to the Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, forever. It purported to be made in consideration of $1 in hand paid, and it contained the following: “Said company to make and maintain a good wire or other fence on both sides of the strip of land hereby conveyed; if wire, the same to have six wires with a board at top; and also to make for the grantors one farm crossing, together with all legal and equitable rights, claims and demands therein and thereto.” At the time of the execution of the deed the railroad had been in existence for some years, having been constructed when the land was owned and occupied by the father of the appellees, and there was a good private farm crossing, constructed by the railroad company; the railroad being substantially upon a level with the immediately adjacent land, where it inclined downward toward the north. This crossing was provided with heavy planks between the rails, and adjoining them on the outsides, and with graded and graveled approaches. It was maintained in this condition by the railroad companies until June, 1901, when the appellant, for the purpose of improving and equalizing the grade of its railroad, raised the surface thereof; making for that purpose an embankment or fill throughout the course of the railroad across the land of the appellees, thereby destroying the private crossing. At the place where the crossing had been, the embankment was about 14 or 15 feet high, above the surface of the old crossing. The height of the embankment varied, but at the lowest point was more than 6 feet. The appellant introduced no evidence, but it appeared in evidence that the appellant had planked a place at some distance eastward from the old...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Columbia Club, Inc. v. American Fletcher Realty Corp., 49A02-9901-CV-61.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 3 Diciembre 1999
    ... ... E.g., Conduitt, 26 N.E. at 198; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Wilson, 34 Ind.App. 324, 72 N.E. 666, 667 (1904). Also, privity of estate may be found between the original covenantors even where they did not hold ... ...
  • Moseley v. Bishop, 4-983
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 20 Noviembre 1984
    ... ... E.g., Conduitt ... v. Ross, supra; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Wilson, (1904) 34 Ind.App. 324 72 N.E. 666. Finally, privity of estate may be found between the original covenantors even where they did not hold ... ...
  • Williams v. Ind. Rail Rd. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 31 Marzo 2015
  • Keene v. Elkhart County Park and Rec. Bd.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 14 Diciembre 2000
    ... ...         In Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 34 Ind.App. 324, 72 N.E. 666 (1904), we were asked to determine whether a railroad, which was subject to a real ... ...
  • 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