Lusby v. Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad

Citations

• 73 Miss. 360

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads. Location of line. Change of line. Express authority necessa/ry.</p> <p>Where the charter of a railroad company, conferring upon it the right of eminent domain, authorizes it to survey, locate and con-1 struct its road through and across the state in a certain general direction on the most advantageous route, and requires it to file in the office of the secretary of state a map, showing the general route of the road, as soon as located, and nowhere expressly authorizes a change or relocation of said line, the company, after so locating its line, filing said map and exercising the right of eminent domain in the construction of its road, is without authority to change or relocate its line, unless expressly authorized by statute or nature has interposed some insurmountable obstacle to the further use of the original line. Railroad Co. v. Devcmey, 42 Miss., 555, mentioned, and its authority denied.</p> <p>2. Courts. Court illegally constituted. High Court of Errors and Appeals. Decisions in 42 Miss. Rep. not antthority. Stare decisis.</p> <p>The decisions contained in the book entitled Mississippi Reports, Vol. 42, being those of a tribunal appointed by a military commander during the reconstruction period, are without binding authority as judicial determinations, save in the cases in which they were rendered.</p> <p>3. Trespass. Penalty for cutting trees. Code 1893, $$ 4413. Decision of de facto cov/rt. Reliance of defendant on same. Res adjudicata.</p> <p>A defendant is not liable for statutory damages for wilful trespass in entering on land, and cutting trees thereon, when it appears that he relied on the unauthorized decision of a de facto appellate tribunal, not previously called in question, which, by its terms) gave sanction to his conduct.</p>