Houston & S. Ry. Co. v. Kansas City, S. & G. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 109 La. 581
• 33 So. 609
• 1903 La. LEXIS 414

Syllabus

<p>RAILROADS — CROSSINGS—INTERLOCKING DEVICES — APPEAL.</p> <p>1. A reasonable and practicable crossing will not be denied if it be in the interest of the public that it be granted.</p> <p>2. Although there is no statute regulating the expropriation of a crossing of one railroad by another, the general statute upon the subject will afford the right to obtain crossing when the business of the road and of the public are in need of a new depot.</p> <p>3. Rights of way are acquired subordinate to the public’s right to other roads. The test is necessity and public interest. The right of the road at the place selected will not be more materially impaired than it would be if another place for the crossing be selected.</p> <p>4. Safeguards and protection at crossings are highly important. They should be general, and not limited to one crossing. The right to require interlocking devices and other safety appliances is left open for consideration in proceedings, if instituted to that end.</p> <p>5. Tiie jury of the vicinage are peculiarly competent to judge of the necessity of allowing one railroad to cross the line of another at a particular place, and to assess the amount to be paid therefor. Unless their finding- is manifestly erroneous, it will not be disturbed.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>