Hall v. Meridian Light & Ry. Co.
76 So. 653, 115 Miss. 760
Opinions
delivered the opinion of the court.
While this declaration contains a great deal of irrelevant matter, it does distinctly allege that the .laying of the second track has resulted in damage to appellants’ property, for which, under Williams v. Meridian Light & Railway Co., 110 Miss. 174, 69 So. 596, they are entitled to recover. The demurrer, therefore, should have been overruled.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hall v. Meridian Light & Ry. Co., 76 So. 653, 115 Miss. 760 (Mich. 1917).
76 So. 653 (Hall v. Meridian Light & Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Callanan v. . Gilman
14 N.E. 264 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
Taylor v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
148 P. 887 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)
Austin v. Augusta Terminal Railway Co.
34 S.E. 852 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
B'ham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Smyer
61 So. 354 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)
Williams v. Meridian Light & Ry. Co.
69 So. 596 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1915)
Dean v. Southern Ry. Co. in Mississippi
73 So. 55 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1916)
Williams v. City Bank & Trust Co.
186 F. 419 (Fifth Circuit, 1911)