Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-15
COURT / DECISIONS D. {. / ] / /
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGEsTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virrinian- Pilot
CHAMPIONSHIPS v. SOUTHERN
Supreme Court Of Appeals of Virginia.
September 81, 1899.

Supreme Court Of Appeals of Virginia.
September 81, 1889.
A HIGHWAY. EITHER IN "A CITY
Or COUNTY, Is THE PROPERTY
OF THE STATE. AND THE RIGHT
OF THE PUBLIC TO REQUIRE A
RAILROAD COMPANY TO PLACE
AND KEEP IT'S CROSSING OVER
THE SAME IN SUCH CONDITION
AS THE LAW REQUIRES CANNOT
BE AFFECTED BY ANY ACTION
OF THE CITY OR COUNTY.
UNDER SECTION % OF THE CODE
A RAILROAD COMPANY CROSS
ING ~ HIGHWAY MUST PUT AND
KEEP THE CROSSING IN A REA-
SONABLY SAFE AND ADEQUATE
CONDITION FOR THE USE OF
THE PUBLIC.
The only question involved in this
suit was whether the Southern Railroad
Company was obliged to make d bridge
over It's railway, where the railway
crossed street in the city Of Char
lottesville, the whole width of the
street. The lower court held in favor
of the railroad company, and the city
of charlottesville appealed.
The Court says:
The litigation in this case grows out
OF the construction of a public highway
about the year 1850. The terms and con-
dltlons upon which such a crossing
could then be made are found in sec
ton 30 of the Code of 1873, as amended
by act of February 2, 1875.
The true meaning Of the statute Is,
we think, that railroad company
may construct Its road across Il public
highway, but Il must do so with as
little injury to the highway as Is prac-
tlcally possible. 1t must so restore the
highway that its use by the public will
not be materially, or, at least, unpec-
essarily, intcrfcred with, and so as not
10 render 1t less safe and convenient
FOR the passage and transportation of
persons or property along the same, cX-
cept so far as diminished safety and
convenience are inseperable from its
use by the railroad.
In the view we take of this case 1t is
unnecessary TO decide whether or not
the original crossing was constructed
In accordance with the provisions of
the statute. If it had been, 1t does not
follow that the crossing is now such
an one as the law requires. The duty
OF "A railroad company in such a case
is IL continuing one. I the population
OF the neighborhood or the use Of the
highway so increased that the crossing
originally adequate Is no longer SO, it
will be the duty of the railroad COM
pany TO make such alteration in the
crossing as the changed conditions re-
cure.
The highway, whether under the con-
troll Of the county or city, is the prop
erty of the State held in trust for the
benefit of the public, and the right Of
The public to require the railroad COM
pany and its successors the appellees.
TO place and keep the crossing in such
CONDITION as the statute requires has
not been affected by anything the coun-
ty or city has done or has failed to do.
The next question is whether or not
the railroad crossing complained of is
such an one as the law requires. under
existing circumstances.
The crossing not being at grade, the
railroad company made cut across
the highway and SPAWNED the cut with
an overhead bridge. The height of the
bridge being greater than the depth of
the cut. ii became necessary to raise
the grade of the highway on either,
side of the biLdgc. This was done BY