Ward v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

113 N.C. 566
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 15, 1893·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Avery, J.:

The defendant’s engineer testified that the bushes which hid the horse from his view grew “on the inside” of the “railroad drain” and “next to the track.” It was held on the former appeal in this case to be the duty of railroad companies to remove such growth, whether of shrubs, trees or grain, as was calculated to obstruct the view of their engineers, to the outer bank of the side ditches, or from all [570]*570of the ground of which they assumed actual dominion for corporate purposes. Ward v. Railroad, 109 N. C., 358; Hinkle v. Railroad, 109 N. C., 472.

In making the addition and qualification of the instruction asked, to which defendant excepted, the Judge below stated the law applicable to the testimony of the defendant’s witness, Knight, and substantially as announced by this Court in the opinion referred to. There was, therefore,

No Error.

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

Ward v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad, 113 N.C. 566 (N.C. 1893).

113 N.C. 566 (Ward v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Simpson v. Enfield Lumber Co.
42 S.E. 939 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Shields v. Norfolk & Carolina Railroad
39 S.E. 582 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Blue v. Aberdeen & West End Railroad
23 S.E. 275 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Black v. Aberdeen & West End Railroad
20 S.E. 713 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)