Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Wright

Decision Date06 June 1906
Citation41 So. 461,148 Ala. 27
PartiesSEABOARD AIR LINE RY. ET AL. v. WRIGHT.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; John Pelham, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by James M. Wright against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and others From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action by appellee aginst appellant under section 3480 of the Code of 1896 for damages to crops for want of proper cattle guards. Defendant filed, among others, plea No. 4, which is as follows: And for further answer to plainitff's said complaint the said defendant says that prior to the said grievances alleged in the complaint the said defendant constructed and erected at the place or places upon the lands in said complaint mentioned, where the defendant's railroad enters and leaves the plaintiff's said lands cattle guards of standard make, commonly known as the "Sheffield Metal Surface Standard Cattle Guard," and were then and there properly constructed and erected and thereafter properly maintained, and so properly constructed erected, and maintained were at said place or places at the time of the grievance complained of in said complaint; and that said cattle guards are in generous use, for like purpose, by all or most of the railroad companies now and then engaged in the businesss of operating railroads in the state of Alabama, and neighboring states of the United States. And said defendant further avers that the only other cattle guards heretofore in use by said railroad company were and are what are known as the "Pit Cattle Guard," which were and are dangerous to the operation of trains on railroads and to the life and limb of passengers and employés upon said trains, whereas said standard cattle guard are not so dangerous, and for that reason said pit cattle guards have been generally discarded by companies operating well-regulated railroads, and were not used by this defendant upon its line of railroad and upon the lands mentioned in said complaint. And the said defendant avers that the cattle guards, so constructed and erected as aforesaid, were in good repair prior to and at the time of the alleged grievance." The plaintiff interposed demurrers to the fourth plea, because the matters and things alleged therein are impertinent and constitute no answer to plaintiff's complaint, and because the said plea fails to allege that the cattle guard so...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Ex parte Hines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 10 d4 Junho d4 1920
    ...... . . The. intimation in S.A.L. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 148 Ala. 27,. 29, 41 So. 461, 462, tends to support the foregoing text. It. is:. . . "The ... must be reversed.". . . This. was in line with the announcement of Davis v. Simpson Coal. Co., supra; in each of said cases the plea having ......
  • Outler v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 14 d4 Junho d4 1906

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