Ford v. Santa Cruz Railroad
59 Cal. 290
Opinion
The facts alleged and found show special damage to Rudolph and his lot not common to the public at large. The defendant was liable only for damages actually sustained prior to the commencement of the suit (Hopkins v. W. P. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 190), and none other was allowed. Neither the statute nor any ordinance of the city authorized the use by defendant of the street in such manner as interfered with the use by the public, or prevented ingress and egress to or from the property lining the street.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ford v. Santa Cruz Railroad, 59 Cal. 290 (Cal. 1881).
59 Cal. 290 (Ford v. Santa Cruz Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hutcherson v. Alexander
264 Cal. App. 2d 126 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Williams v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.
89 P. 599 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Coats v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
82 P. 640 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Lockwood
33 Fla. 573 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1894)
Hargro v. Hodgdon
26 P. 1106 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Beronio v. Southern Pacific Railroad
24 P. 1093 (California Supreme Court, 1890)