Illinois Central Railroad v. Wilbourn

Citations

• 74 Miss. 284

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads. Waters. Obstructions. Overflow. Former recovery.</p> <p>An action against a railway conrpanv for such, damag-e as has resulted to the upper of two adjoining tracts of plaintiff’s land from overflow, caused by an insufficient culvert and the erection of an embankment, is not barred by reason of his assig-nor’s previous recovery of damages for the total destruction in value of the lower tract from the same cause.</p> <p>2. Same. Peremptory instruction.</p> <p>It is the province of the jury to determine whether, or not, the injurious effects of the manner in which the natural flow of water has been obstructed by a railway company, ai-e consistent with a due regard by such company for the rig-hts of adjacent proprietors in the construction of its road.</p> <p>3. Same. Erroneous instruction.</p> <p>It is error, in an action for damages to plaintiff’s lands resulting from an overflow, caused by an insufficient culvert and an embankment constructed by the defendant railroad company, to instruct the jury that the “plaintiff had the right to have the water, whether rain water or spring water, flow as they naturally would have flowed without any obstruction by the railroad,” for an interference with the natural flow of water incident to a proper construction and use of its roadbed, imposes no liability upon the defendant.</p>