Case Name: Gus Seelbinder v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1895-10
Citations: 73 Miss. 84
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gus Seelbinder v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 84–86

Head Matter:
Gus Seelbinder v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
Railroad Crossings. Necessary plantation roads. Boads outside of the plantation not embraced in the statute. Code 1892, ?¿ 3561.
Where a railroad does not run through any part oí a plantation, but its right of way adjoins it on one side, a road running across its track into the plantation on that side, is not a necessai’y plantation road within the meaning of the statute requiring the railroad company, under a penalty of two hundred and fifty dollars, to make and maintain convenient and suitable crossings over its track for necessary plantation roads. Code 1892, l 3561.
From the circuit court of Carroll county.
Hon. C. H. Campbell, Judge.
The plaintiff, Seelbinder, sued the defendant railroad company for two hundred and fifty dollars for failing to make and maintain a convenient and suitable crossing over its tracks for a certain road. He alleged in the declaration that this road was a necessary plantation road, but also showed thereby that the plantation, of which he claimed ownership, was not intersected by the railroad, but merely had the railroad right of way for its boundary on one side. The defendant demurred, on the ground that it was not alleged that its track or right of way traversed or passed through plaintiff’s plantation. The demurrer was sustained; and plaintiff appealed from the judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action.
Southworth <& Stevens, for appellant.
The averments of the declaration were sufficient to entitle plaintiff to a recovery under § 3561, code 1892. The ££ stock gaps ’ ’ or cattle guards required to be constructed by railroads, are only required where the railroads run through the 1 ‘ inclosed land. ’ ’ That is in order to prevent stock from getting into fields, and depredating upon crops. The plantation can be fenced by the owner if the railroad track does not pass through his land. After this requirement in the statute, we find a semicolon. Then the reading begins with the co-ordinate conjunction £ £ and, ’ ’ and a separate, distinct and independent duty is required of railroads, to wit: ££To make and maintain convenient and suitable crossings over its track for necessary plantation roads.”
These crossings may be as £ £ necessary ’ ’ where the railroad track passes along the whole boundary of a plantation as where it passes through a plantation. Otherwise the owner might be cut off, and unable to remove his produce without becoming a trespasser upon the property of the railroad company. While not directly in point, the case of Spencer v. Saib'oad Oo., 72 Miss., 491, bears somewhat on the question in controversy.
Mayes <& Ha/rris, for appellee.
Plantation roads are such as lead from one part of a plantation to another, and are easily distinguishable from neighborhood roads like the one in question.
The language of the statute makes it plain that it is intended to apply to a case where the road is on one man’s land, as the penalty is given to the person interested; and one person would not have a right to demand of the railroad company, without some showing to that effect, a crossing over its track to enter the land of another. The courts will not expand a statute so highly penal in order to include a case not fairly within its scope and meaning. Section 3901, code 1892, provides for private ways, and the remedy is ample.

Opinion:
Cooper, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The crossing, for failure to provide which this suit was brought, is not a " necessary plantation road " within the meaning of § 3561 of the code.
Affirmed.