Pelham & Havana Railroad v. Walker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pelham & Havana Railroad v. Walker

101 S.E. 715, 24 Ga. App. 530, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 900

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1919

Docket10600

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 S.E. 715 (Pelham & Havana Railroad v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pelham & Havana Railroad v. Walker, 101 S.E. 715, 24 Ga. App. 530, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 900 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant railroad company for damage to his fish-pond, which was adjacent to the railroad’s right of way, and alleged that the defendant in building its railroad put in a fill across a stream just above the fish-pond, and constructed the road in a “cut,” with a ditch on both sides of the roadbed, and that this construction diverted the rainwater from its natural course of drainage and conveyed it into the fishpond (which was abundantly stocked with fish), thereby causing the waters of the pond to become polluted with mud, destroying the fish and permanently impairing the value of the pond. No negligence of any character was charged against the defendant. Upon the trial it was shown by undisputed evidence that the plaintiff, prior to the construction of the railroad, had by deed conveyed to the defendant the land upon which the railroad was subsequently constructed, adjacent to the fish-pond. In the deed it was expressly stipulated that the land should be used for no other purpose than that of a common carrier. The deed also recited that the grantor “reserves the privilege of raising the water in his fish-pond, which is adjacent to the right of way.” There was no evidence to show that the defendant had negligently or improperly constructed the railroad, or that it could have been constructed in some other way that would not have caused the alleged damage, or that the defendant negligently or improperly maintained its roadbed and right of way.

Under these facts the verdict for the defendant was the only possible legal result (see, in this connection, Southern Marble Co. v. Darnell, 94 Ga. 331, 31 S. E. 531; Vandiver v. Byrd-Matthews Lumber Co., 146 Ga. 117, 90 S. E. 960), and the errors in the charge of the court were harmless. The verdict having been demanded by the evidence, the court erred in granting a new trial, although it was the first grant thereof.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs; Luhe J., disqualified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant railroad company for damage to his fish-pond, which was adjacent to the railroad’s right of way, and alleged that the defendant in building its railroad put in a fill across a stream just above the fish-pond, and constructed the road in a “cut,” with a ditch on both sides of the roadbed, and that this construction diverted the rainwater from its natural course of drainage and conveyed it into the fishpond (which was abundantly stocked with fish), thereby causing the waters of the pond to become polluted with mud, destroying the fish and permanently impairing the value of the pond. No negligence of any character was charged against the defendant. Upon the trial it was shown by undisputed evidence that the plaintiff, prior to the construction of the railroad, had by deed conveyed to the defendant the land upon which the railroad was subsequently constructed, adjacent to the fish-pond. In the deed it was expressly stipulated that the land should be used for no other purpose than that of a common carrier. The deed also recited that the grantor “reserves the privilege of raising the water in his fish-pond, which is adjacent to the right of way.” There was no evidence to show that the defendant had negligently or improperly constructed the railroad, or that it could have been constructed in some other way that would not have caused the alleged damage, or that the defendant negligently or improperly maintained its roadbed and right of way.

Under these facts the verdict for the defendant was the only possible legal result (see, in this connection, Southern Marble Co. v. Darnell, 94 Ga. 331, 31 S. E. 531; Vandiver v. Byrd-Matthews Lumber Co., 146 Ga. 117, 90 S. E. 960), and the errors in the charge of the court were harmless. The verdict having been demanded by the evidence, the court erred in granting a new trial, although it was the first grant thereof.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs; Luhe J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 715, 24 Ga. App. 530, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelham-havana-railroad-v-walker-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack