I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CA- 0 0 5 0 3 - S CT M I S S I S S I P P I EX P OR T RA I L RO AD COM

P AN Y
v. M AL CO LM

E. RO U SE A N D ED N A F . RO U SE ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 20/ 2004 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J AY E A. BRA DLEY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GEORGE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : R A Y MO N D L
. B R O WN W
. F R E D H O R N S B Y , III AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E S : AUS T I N R
. NI M OC KS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 04/ 13/ 2006 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 12/ 22/ 2005 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h e m o ti o n f

o r r e h e a rin g is d e n ied . T h e o rig in a l o p in io n is w ith d ra w n a n d th is
o p in io n is s u b s titu te d th e re f o r. ¶2. T h is is a claim o f p resc ri p ti v e ea sem en t b y p r i vat e ci t i zens w ho pr es ent ed uncontr adi ct ed pr oof of c ont i nuous us e of a pr i vat e cr os s i ng over act i ve ra i l r oad tr acks for
o v e r f if tyy e a rs. T h e q u e s tio n p re se n ted is w h e th e r a c tiv e ra ilro a d tra c k s a re “ p u b lic hi ghway s ” a s p r o v i d e d b yAr t i c l e 7 , § 1 8 4 , o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i Con s t i tu t i o n a n d , t h er efor e, im m u n e f

ro m p re sc rip tiv e e a se m e n t.Th eRou se s, at tria l, adm it tedthey werefa mil iar w iththeprov isi on s o f t heind e mni ty 1 agree ment through other landowners, but insisted that M E RC never pre sented them with an indemnity

agree ment to sign. 

### 2

B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 3
. In e a rl yM a rc h , 2 0 0 0 , M a lc o lm a n d E d n a R o u s e , o w n e rs o f D e e p S o u th N u rs e ry, In c ., pur chas ed appr oxi m at el yt w entyacr es ( “Tw entyA cr es ”) i n rur al G eor ge C ount yt o expand t he i r 12 8- a c r e nu r s e r y bu s i ne s s . A l t ho ug h no pu bl i c r oa d a dj oi ns t he Tw e ntyA cres , M i s s i s s i ppi E xportR ai l r oad C o m p an y ’s (“M E R C ”) righ t- o f-w ayruns appr oxi m at el y403 fee t al ong t he eas t ern bor der w i t h a pri vat e di r tcr os s i ng overM E R C ’ s r i ght
- of- w ayand r ai l r oad tr ac k s co n n ec ti n g the T w en tyA cr e s w ith K arla R o ad
. D ee p S o u th rec eive s an d d eli v ers plant s on 1 8-w heelert ract ors w i t h 4 6-foo tt rai l ers . ¶ 4
. A ft er t he R o u s e s p u r c h a s e d t h e Twen t y A cr es , M E R C ’ s Super i nt endent of E ngi neer i ng, W i l l i e Evans, s etup a m eet i ng t o di s cus s t he cr os s i ng. M r . R ous e and Evans
m e t at th e c ro ss in g to d isc u ss th e R o u se s’ c o n tin u e d u se o f th e c ro ss in g . A c c o rd in g to M ERC , i tt h r e a t e n e d t o r e mo v e t h e c r o s s i n g u n l e s s t h e Ro u s e s a g r e e d t o i n d e mn i f yM ERC forl i abi l i t ycl ai m s and paya s har e of the mai ntena n ce co sts r el at ed t o t he cr os s i ng. T he 1

m e e tin g c o n c lu d e d w ith n o a g re e m e n t. ¶5. Shor tl y there aft er , t he R ous es pl ant ed appr oxi m at el y 21, 000 C r epe M yr t l es , Y apon H o l l y, D e o d a r C e d a r , F o s t e rH o l l y, a n d o t h e rs h ru b s t o o f f e rf o rs a l e u p o n t h e i rm a tu r i t y. O vert he nextfew y ear s , t he R ous es us ed t he pr i vat e di r t cr os s i ng t o acc es s t he Tw entyA cr es and ca r e fort he pl ant s t o pr epar e them for s al e.

### 3

¶ 6
. T h e Rou s e s h e a r d n o t h i n g f u r t h e r r e g a r d i n g t h e c r o s s i n g unt i l ear l y 2003, w hen M E R C pr ovi ded them w r i t t en not i ce t hat t he cr os s i ng w oul d be r emoved i n t hi r t yday s , but th a t M E R C w o u ld g ra n t th e R o u se s a 2 0 -f o o t ea se m e n t f

ro m th e n o rth e a st c o rn e r o f th e ir pr oper t yal ong appr oxi m at el y400 fee t of t he w es t s i de of M E R C ’ s r i ght
- of- w ay , t o Par ker R oad. A l t hough t he ea s ement gr ant ed byM E R C pr ovi ded ac ces s fora u t om obi l es and pi ckup t rucks, i tw as unsuit able for 18 w heel tract or trai l ers . ¶7. O n A pr i l 8, 2003, M E R C r emoved the cr os s i ng w hi ch, acc or di ng t o t he undi s put ed evidence at tri al , had been used f o r a c c e ss to the T w entyA cres for m ore t han fi ft yy ears . T hi s pr om pt ed the R ous es t o br i ng s ui t i n t he C hance r yC our tof G eor ge C ount y , cl ai m i ng
a n e a se m e n t b yp re sc rip tio n , an d se e k in g a n in ju n c tio n a g a in st M E R C “ f ro m e n ter in g o n to said ea sem en t or o ther p rop ertyo f th e P lai n ti ff s an d takin g an y ac ti o n s w h ich, i n an ym an n er,
m ayi nt er fer e w i t h t he Plai n t i ffs ’ us e and oc cupanc yof thei reas ement orr i ght
- of- w ayor bus i nes s , w hetherforbus i nes s orpr i vat e purpos e. ” T he s ui tdemanded damages fort or t i ous i nter ference w i th thei r busi ness ope rat i on s, pu nit i ve d am ages, and cou rtcost s. ¶8. A ft er t r i al , t he chanc el l or aw ar ded t he R ous es an ea sem en t by p resc ri p ti on and
o rd e re d M E R C to p ro m p tly re sto re th e re m o v e d c ro ss in g , b u t d ism iss e d th e R o u se s’ c laim
o f to rtio u s in ter f

e re n c e . T h e c h a n c e llo r e n jo in e d M E R C f

ro m d istu rb in g o r in ter f e rin g w ith t he R ous es ’ us e of the ea s ement “s o l ong as s ame does notdi s rupt the o p era ti o n of t he
r ai l r oa d ’ s b u s i n e s s . ” Fr o m t h i s j u d g me n t , M ERC a p p e a l s . Both t h e M i s s i s s i p p i Ra i l r oadWe will not address M iss. Code Ann. Section 77-9-253 (Re v. 1999) bec ause it is not 2 applicableto the casesub judice. The statute would impose a duty on the railroad compa

ny to make and maintain a c rossingonly if the trac k passed through the Twenty acres, and it is undisputed that it does not here. 

### 4 A s s oci at i on an d t he A m er i can Shor tL i ne and Regi onal R ai l r oad A s s oci at i on fi l ed am i cus bri efs. A N A L Y S IS ¶9. M E R C r ai s es num er ous i s s ues on appea l , i ncl udi ng an as s er t i on t hatt he R ous es fai l ed to m e e t th e ir b u rd e n o f

p ro o f a s to p re sc rip tiv e e a se m e n t. B e c a u se w e a g re e , an d to d a yh o ld t hatpr es cr i pt i ve ea s ement s m aynotbe obt ai ned bypr i vat e ci ti ze n s acr os s act i ve r ai l r oad lin e s , w e s h a ll a d d r e s s o n ly th a t is s u e u tiliz in g a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . G ourl

ay v. W il liam s, 8 7 4 S o . 2 d 9 8 7 , 9 8 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). 2 ¶10. T hi s C our thas l ong hel d t hat“[t ] he r i ght s of the publ i c t o t he us e of t he s t r eet s and p u b lic ro a d s c a n n o t b e lo s t b ya d v e rs e p o s s e s s io n . W hi thers poon v. Mer idian , 69 M i s s . 288, 1 3 S o u th . 8 4 3 [ (1 8 9 1 )]; B r i el v. Cit y of N atchez , 4 8 M iss . 4 2 3 [ (1 8 7 3 )]; Vi cks burg v. Ma rs h a ll , 59 M i s s . 563 [( 1882) ]
. ” Mob ile & O . R. Co. v . Str ain, 88 S o. 27 4, 2 7 7 (M i ss. 1 9 2 1 ). ¶11. I n M i s s i s s i ppi , r ai l r oad t r acks ar e consi der ed publ i c hi ghw ay s . A r t i cl e 7, Sect i on 184 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des , “[a ] l l r ai l r oads w hi ch ca r r yper s ons orpr oper t yfor hi r e s hal l be publi c h igh w ay s , and al l r ai l r oad compani es s o engage d s hal l be comm on
c a rr ie rs ....”

### 5

¶ 1 2
. T h u s, b e c a u se w e a re c o n stitu tio n a lly re q u ir e d to re c o g n ize “ ra ilro a d s” a s “ p u b lic hi ghw ay s , ” and a s di s cus s ed i nfr a , our pr ece dent cl ear l y pr ohi bi t s a pri vat e i ndi vi dual fr om g a in in g a n in ter e st ac ro ss a p u b lic h ig h w a yb ya d v e rse p o ss e ss io n o r p re sc rip tiv e e a se m e n t, the q u esti o n p rese n ted a p p ea rs si m p le. H o w ev er, as p o inted o u t bythe R o u ses, t h is C o u rt h as co n sist en tl y h eld t h at a rai lr o ad ’s ri g h t- o f-w ay m ay b e ad v erse ly p o sses s e d
. See e
. g. Mobi le & O . R . C o. v . Str ain, 8 8 S o . 2 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 2 1 ); P axton v. R ailr oad Co. , 76 M i ss. 536, 24 Sout h. 536 ( 1899) ; and W ilm o t v . Y

a z o o & M

. V a l. R . Co ., 24 So. 701, 76 M i s s . 374 ( 1899)
. W e fi nd t hi s l i ne of c as es cl ear l ydi s t i ngui s habl e. ¶13. I n S tra in , t he o w ner of a ho t el si tuated on rai l road ri gh t -of- w aysoug ht t i t l e by adv ers e pos s es s i on. T he S tra in C our tr ecogni zed that r i ght s byadver s e pos s es s i on coul d notbe gai ned ac r os s t he por t i on of r i ght
- of- w ay“i n actual us e, ” but t hen s t at ed t hat as t o “l ands of a rai l road co m pan y no t actuall y necessary for t he o perat i on s of t he rai l road, t i t l e byadv ers e p os s es s i on m aybe ac qui r ed. ” S tra in , 8 8 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 7
. S tra in c l e a r l y s t ands for t he pr opos i t i on t hatt he por t i on of r ai l r oad r i ght
- of- w ay i n actual us e, t hati s , t he tr acks , i s t o be t r eat ed as a publ i c hi ghw ay , and t i t l e by adver s e pos s es s i on as t o a par t of the r i ght
- of- w ay
m aybe ac qui r ed onl yi f t hatpor t i on i s notbei ng us ed. ¶ 1 4
. Th e Ro u s e s c l a i m Alab am a & V. Ry. Co. v . Jo s e ph, 87 So. 421 ( M i s s . 1921) , hol ds t hat an i ndi vi dual , corpor at i on, orm uni ci pal i t ycan a cqui r e a pr es cr i pt i ve r i ght
- of- w ayover
an ac t i ve r ai l r oad tr ack. I n Jos eph , the rai l r oad companycondemned a s t r i p of l and nea r t hei rr ai l r oad tr acks and the intersect i on of C api t al and G al l at i n s t r eet s t o i m pr ove the

### 6

i nt er s ect i on’ s vi s i bi l i t yfor t hei r engi neer s . A ft ert he r ai l r oad conde m ned the s t r i p of l and, t he C i t yof J acks on paved Capi t al and G al l at i n str ee ts and par tof the conde m ned s t r i p of l a n d
. T h e p u b l i c t r a v e r s e d t h e p a v e d s e c t i o n o f t h e c o n d e m n e d l a n d a s p a r to f t h e r o a d w a y. ¶ 1 5
. T h e ra ilro a d b ro u g h t su it a g a in st th e C ity o f Ja c k so n a n d o th e rs to “ c a n c e l a n yc laim of ow ner s hi p” i n t he s t r i p of l and. A l t hough t he ci tydi d notdefe nd t he s ui tand j udgm ent
w as ent er ed aga i ns t i t , t he R ous es ci t e i n t hei r br i ef t he fol l ow i ng l anguage fr om t he opi ni on: T he pr oof does nots how t hatt he r ai l r oad w as excl uded fr om t hi s pr oper t yat al l byt he ci t y . T he r ai l r oad w as cons t ant l yi n us e of i t s t r acks , and us i ng t he pr oper t yfort he purpos es forw hi ch i tw as acqui r ed, and t he fa ct s s how t hat bot h t he ci t yand the r ai l r oad companyw er e maki ng s uch us e of the s t r i p of gr o u nd i n ques t i on as w oul d noti nt er fer e w i t h t he r ai l r oad’ s r i ght s . U nder th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e c itym e re lya c q u ire d su c h rig h ts a s th e u se v e ste d in i t . T hati s t o s ay , a mer e r i g h t o f p assage overt he gr ound forper s ons and vehi cl es and nott he r i ghtt o obs t ructorer ectanybui l di ng upon t he gr ound. Id
. at422. A ccor di ng t o t he R ous es, th is l anguage l eads t o t he fol l ow i ng concl us i on: “[a ] ccor di ngl y , this C our trul ed thatt he C i t yof J acks on acqui r ed a pr es cr i pt i ve r i ghtof
us age, s uch thatper s ons and veh icl es ( t he publ i c) di d have the r i ghtt o pas s overt he
ra ilro a d ’s tra c k s a s n e e d e d .” T h e R o u se s’ c o n c lu sio n is c u rio u s, in d e e d , g iv e n th a t th e su it in Jo se p h d id n o t in v o lv e a c laim o f p re sc rip tiv e e a se m e n t o v e r th e tra c k s, a n d th a t th e C ity
o f J a c k s o n c o n f

e s s e d ju d g m e n t, lo s in g a n yc la im o f e a s e m e n t it m ig h t h a v e h a d
. Jos eph stan d s fo r th e p rop o sit ion that, ev en w h ere a p arty ac q u ir es an ea sem en t acro ss a ra il roa d ’s
r i ght
- of- w ay( noti t s t r acks ) , t hat eas ement i s l i m i t ed t o us es w hi ch do noti nt er fer e w i t h t he rai l road’s use of

i t s tracks.

### 7

¶16. O ur deci s i on t oday i s not out of l i ne w i t h ot her j ur i s di ct i ons . T he Supr eme C our tof V i r gi ni a r eaf

fi r m ed i t s w el l
- es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl e thata pr es cr i pt i ve ri ght
- of- w aycannotbe acqui r ed overpr oper t ybei ng us ed fora publ i c purpos e i n N or f ol k and W

. R y. Co. v. W a s e lc h a lk, 2 4 4 V a . 3 2 9 , 4 2 1 S .E .2 d 4 2 4 (V a . 1 9 9 2 ). In th is c a se , a fa rm u til ize d a p riv a te
ra ilro a d c ro ss in g f

o r m a n yy e a rs f

o r a g ric u ltu ra l an d o th e r r e la ted p u rp o se s. B e tty W as el chal k deci ded t o es t abl i s h a mobi l e home on a por t i on of the l and and us e the r ai l r oad
cr os s i ng foracc es s t o a publ i c hi ghw ay . U pon l earni ng of the cr os s i ng’ s change i n us e fr om agr i cul tur al t o r es i dent i al , t he r ai l r oad pr es ent ed W as el chal k w i t h a cr os s i ng agr eementt hat
w oul d r equi r e hert o payt he m ai nt enanc e cos t s for a r es i dent i al cr os s i ng. W hen s he r efus ed t o s i gn t he agr eement , t he r ai l r oad cl os ed the cr os s i ng. A tt r i al , t he ch an ce ll o rfound t hat W as el chal k had a pr es cr i pt i ve r i ghtt o us e the cr os s i ng. I n fi ndi ng err ori n t hi s det er m i nat i on, th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f

V irg in ia h e ld th a t " ' n o p re sc rip tiv e rig h t c a n b e a c q u ire d in p ro p e rty
a f f e c t e d w i t h a p u b l i c i n t e r e s t o r d e d i c a t e d t o a p u b l i c u s e . ' P r es hlock v. B r enner , 234 V a. 407, 409, 362 S. E
. 2d 696, 697 ( 1987) ( quot i ng City o f L y n c h b u rg v . Ch e sa

p e a k e a n d

O h io R y. , 170 V a. 108, 116, 195 S. E
. 510, 514 ( 1938) )
. ” W a se lch a lk , 421 S. E
. 2d at425. ¶ 1 7
. F o r f

u r t h e rs u p p o r t i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s , s e e g e n e r a l l y B r eider t v. Souther n P ac. Co. , 77 C a l. R p tr. 2 6 2 (C a l. C t. A p p . 1 9 6 9 ); D alton En ter. , I nc. v. B os ton & Ma rine C o r p. , 709 A .2 d 6 1 1 (C o n n . S u p . 1 9 9 7 ); L ouis vil le & N . R . R . v. H

agan , 1 3 1 S
. W
. 1 0 1 8 (K y . 1 9 1 0 ); B a n g o r & A ro o sto o k R . Co . v. D a ig le , 6 0 7 A .2 d 5 3 3 (M e . 1 9 9 2 ); Cinn c inn a ti , N. O. & T. P.

### 8

R y C o. v. S h arp , 207 S. W
. 728 ( T enn. 1918) and A & M Pr op erti es, I

nc . v . N or f ol k S. Co r p ., 5 0 6 S
. E
. 2 d 6 3 2 (W
. V a. 19 9 8 ). CO NC L US I ON ¶1 8. W e hol d t od a yt ha ta pr i va t e pa r t ymayno tob t a i n a pr e s c r i pt i ve e a s em ent across act i ve ra i l r oad t r acks , t hat i s , t r acks “w hi ch car r y per s ons or pr oper t y for hi r e. ” U nderour
cons t i tut i on, s uch tr acks “s hal l be publ i c hi ghw ay s . ” A cco rdi ngl y , t he j udgm entof t he C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f

G e o rg e C o u n ty is r e v e rs e d a n d re n d e re d
. ¶ 1 9
. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R A N D C O B B , P .J J ., C A R L S O N A N D G R A V E S , J J ., CONCUR. EA S LE Y, J . , DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .