The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-12-12
government, and il cannot be disturbed
without unscttling thefoundations and en-
dangcring the whole fabric.
RAILROAD CROSSINGS IN CITIES

RAILROAD CROSSINGS IN CITIES.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut re-
Gently handed down the following decis-
ion as TO the duty OF railroads to protect
and accommodate the public by building
bridges or yiaducts over their tracks and
the liability Of such corporations TO pay
for their construction, including the ap-
proaches, and all damages to adjacent
property caused by such construction;
The case IS that Of Carollue:M. purrcttw the city
Of New Haven aud the New Haven & Northampton
Rallroad Company, reported In the i2d Connecti'
cut The railroad had laid tracks crossing high
',hy IN the outer part Of New Haven In 1873. In
1872 the city had 10 much extended, and travel
over the highway had 40 increased that the city
Go ~ % orlctrd the railroad corporation To build
vialuct over Ia crossing The railroad people re-
fused To build After negotiation the milrual com
pany built the mpcn;ructuIc OF the yaduct. the
city building The approaches. The plaintiff sued
the city aud the railroad company for damages
done her property abu,ting lots by tlg consirnc
ton Of approaches. The court held that the mil'
road COM any alone was liable Tor those damages
under the broad principle, ol the common law. The
necessity Of tho ynduct grew out Of the existence
Of the mllroad. Tho Common Council had no right
& enter into n contract with the railroad company
whereby Il ngiecd 10 build approaches "lhe
duty OF a mllrond company 10 restore highway
10 a. former usciuluoss was not discharged when
II restored t 70 proper condition az the time OF
H. construction, hut WIS n continuing one, aud
embraced such alterations aud Improvement as
should aitcrvarl be made necessary by the growth
OF the city nnd Increased truyel." The court fur.
thcr held that the cnbankments lapproichC'l at
the end OF a bridge (y!aducD made necessary ON
restoring highway To H. former usefulness are a
pnrt OF the miltoad structure, aud party Incl
dcnmlly injuud IN their construction has a.
perfect rmcdy against the company Tor
consequential damages as for direct
injury by Il in the original construction
Of The road The order II the Common Council
In reference 20 the structure extended only 10 the
ahutmcnts and the yhduci proper but the court
held in this language "lhc building OF tho
bridge lyiaducu proper was necessary To give the
puJlic a sale aud convenient passage over the de
iyndinrs tracks. rnd the filling In of the aP-
rrnache, WA required IN consequence Of the cree
lion Of the lriigc lyladucu In ordcr IN n.orc the
street 10 u, former usefulness, which 1t was the
duty OF the defendant t1 do. The fact that
CO., duty {. o. law imposed on thr company b sui
nci,nt 10 ohnigc Il with al thc consequences u
sneh an execution Of Il as results IN iuiury TO
others
This decision has been brought conspic
uou,ly 10 the attention Of the people o
Chicago by Judge Green, Corporation
Counsel OF that city, who gives It rs his
opinion that those railroads which entered
the city without entering into stipulated
agreements TO construct viaducts, will
have TO build them and pay the damages
Of construction in order TO restore the
streets which they cross TO public useful
ness II this IL good Law for Chicago, for
Iowa and for Connecticut, will it not also
be- good law for Memphis and Tennessee?