New Albany & Salem Railroad v. O'Daily
The New Albany and Salem Railroad Company v. O'Daily and Wife
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Perkins, J.
This was a complaint for an injunction *552 and a writ of assessment of damages against The New Albany cmd Salem Railroad Company, because said company was proceeding to lay a track of their road along a certain street in the city of Lafayette, in front of the lot of -A-11 injunction was granted, &c. ' II. W. Chase, I. A. Wilstach, S. C. Willson, and J. E. McDonald, for the appellants.
A railroad in a city is not, necessarily, a nuisance, and the injunction cannot be sustained on that ground. Ang. on Highw., p. 217. See Wood v. Mears, at this term (1) . And so far as the suit was to obtain compensation for damages by a statutory wilt of assessment, it must fail, because the appropriation of a public street to the use of a railroad, is not a taking of the private property of the owners of adjoining lots, within the meaning of the statute giving that remedy. The action must be one for damages for an injury as at common law, if one lies at all. The Indiana, &c., Co. v. Boden, 10 Ind. R. 96.—Protzman v. The Indianapolis, &c., Railroad Co., 9 id. 467.
Per Cwriam.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded to be dismissed.
Ante, 515.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.