{
  "id": 1537520,
  "name": "Hahn & Carter v. Gould Southwestern Railway Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hahn & Carter v. Gould Southwestern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-06-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "537",
  "last_page": "542",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 Ark. 537"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1502452
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/75/0534-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Neb. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Neb.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546964
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/neb/76/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ark. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1909793
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "561"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/66/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 U. S. 226",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3592880
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/166/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 U. S. 430",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3671744
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/232/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 U. S. 562",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 U. S. 226",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3592880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/166/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 452,
    "char_count": 9437,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.193064603165465e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47577194654977956
    },
    "sha256": "3bcb4fa100cf85ede0e8285f6994c4d7199e212cabe61c5f79ec9b31d1217549",
    "simhash": "1:ea4027df6d9fea49",
    "word_count": 1588
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:31.349152+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hahn & Carter v. Gould Southwestern Railway Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts). The question is, Was appellee liable to appellant for the expense of installing a new crossing for appellee\u2019s railroad over the ditch which appellant was under contract to construct?\nSection 28 of the General Drainage Act of 1909, Act 279, under the authority of which the drainage district and appellant entered into the contract for digging the ditch, provides in part as follows:\n\u201cSuch ditches shall also be carried under or through any railroad track or tramway, and the owner thereof shall have no claim for damages on that account, but shall bridge such ditch at its own expense.\u201d\nThe term \u201cbridge,\u201d as used in the clause of the act quoted, means \u201cbuild a crossing over.\u201d Under the express terms of the act, therefore, the appellee had to build the crossing over the ditch \u201cat its own expense.\u201d\nThe question is not presented here as to whether or not the drainage district or appellants could acquire the right-of-way for the ditch'under appellee\u2019s railroad without compensation for such right-of-way, and we do not decide that question.\nAs already stated, the only question presented by this record is whether or not appellee is liable for the expense of installing the new crossing that became necessary in constructing the ditch under its track.\nThe allegations of the complaint and the contract set forth therein, upon which appellants base their cause of action, show clearly that the question as to whether or not appellee is entitled to compensation for the right-of-way of the ditch under its track or roadbed is not involved.\nSection 6681 of Kirby\u2019s Digest provides that where any public road or highway shall cross any railroad, such railroad shall construct the crossing. And Judge Rid-dick, speaking for the court in construing this statute in Southwestern Railway Company v. Royall, 75 Ark. 532, said:\n\u201cWe think it may well be inferred from the language of this statute that no compensation was intended to be paid the company, either for constructing the crossing or for keeping it in repair.\n\u201cWhen a highway is established across a railroad track in this State, it becomes its duty under this statute to construct the crossings and keep them in repair. This is a police regulation, and similar provisions are found in the statutes of other States. As nothing is said in the act about compensating the company for this burden, which the law places upon it, we think none can be implied. It seems plain to us that none was intended, for it is not usual to allow compensation for the expense of obeying a police regulation. * * *\n\u201cFor this reason we are of the opinion that the circuit court correctly held that the company was entitled to no compensation for constructing the crossing and keeping it in repair.\u201d See also Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Drainage Commissioners, 200 U. S. 562.\nIn the recent case of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis, it is held:\n\u201cThe expense of constructing and maintaining the necessary railway bridge over the gap in a railway right-of-way, made by the municipal construction across it of a canal or waterway, with footpaths on each side connecting two lakes, used for public recreation, may be cast upon the railroad company, without denying it the due process of law guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.\u201d See 232 U. S. 430.\nThe statute in regard to railway companies being required to construct crossings over roads or highways, construed in Railway v. Royall, supra, is precisely similar to the clause of the act under consideration. The principles announced in the above case are controlling here, and it follows that, under the law and the contract be? tween the appellants and appellee, as set up in the complaint, the appellee is liable to appellants in the sum of $150. Under the contract, the payment of this sum by the appellants was not voluntary, and appellants are, therefore, entitled to have judgment for the same against appellee.\nThe court, therefore, erred in sustaining appellee\u2019s demurrer to appellants\u2019 complaint and dismissing the same.\nThe judgment is therefore reversed, and judgment will he entered here in favor of the appellants against appellee for the sum of $150.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough and A. H. Roivell, for appellant.",
      "E. W. Brochman, E. B. Kinsworthy, T. D. Crawford and W. T. Wooldridge, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hahn & Carter v. Gould Southwestern Railway Company.\nOpinion delivered June 29, 1914.\n1. Drainage districts \u2014 ditches under railroad track \u2014 duty to build crossing. \u2014 Under Act 279, Acts 1909, the general drainage act, it is the duty of a railroad company to build, at its own expense, the crossing over a ditch, carried under or through -its track. (Page 538.)\n2. Drainage districts \u2014 \u201cbridge\u201d defined. \u2014 The term \u201cbridge,\u201d as used in section 28, Act 279, Acts 1909, means \u201cbuild a crossing over.\u201d (Page 540.)\n3. Drainage districts \u2014 construction of crossing \u2014 payment\u2014recovery of voluntary payment. \u2014 Appellants were constructing a drainage ditch, which passed under appellee\u2019s roadbed. In -order -to expedite the work, appellants paid appellee the -cost of building the crossing over the ditch; held, the appellee railroad company being required to construct the crossing at its own expense, and appellants\u2019 payment to it, not being voluntary, appellants were entitled to -recover the same from appellee. (Page 541.)\nAppeal from Lincoln Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\n\u201e Appellants, plaintiffs below, instituted this suit against the appellee, defendant, alleging that they had a contract for digging a ditch with the Karsh Lake Drainage District; that \u201cit became necessary to carry one of the drainage ditches through the track of the defendant, and the directors of the district and the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to permit the ditch to be constructed through its track, the same to be bridged at the expense of the defendant, as provided in section 28 of the act, approved May 22, 1909. That the defendant wrongfully refused to allow the plaintiffs or the said district to cut the ditch through its track, except upon the payment of the sum of $150; that the ditch had, at the time, been constructed up to the said track, and it would have cost the district and said plaintiffs much more than said sum to have delayed the work until the rights of the parties could he adjudicated in the courts, and, therefore, the plaintiffs paid the sum under protest and under the following agreement:\n\u201cThis agreement made and entered into by and between Hahn & Carter, parties of the first part, and the Gould Southwestern Railway Company, parties of the second part:\n\u201c Whereas, Hahn & Carter have made contract with the Karsh Lake Drainage District for the doing of the construction work in that district, and in the prosecution of said work it is necessary that the present crossing of the Gould Southwestern Railway Company, near the station of Gould, section 35, township 38, range 5, Lincoln County, Arkansas, be removed and a new crossing put in that corresponds with the improvements in said drainage district;'and,\n\u201cWhereas, The second party claims that it is not' properly chargeable with said expense and that it must be borne by either the said drainage district or the first party, but that if the first party will pay the expense of removing the present crossing and putting in the new one, the work will be done by the second party; and,\n\u201cWhereas, The first party claims that the said expense of installing the new crossing should be borne by the second party;\n\u201cNow Therefore, To save time in the construction of said crossing, it is agreed that the first party shall deposit with the second party the expense of installing the new crossing, amounting to $150, but that said payment is not an admission that said charge should not be borne by the second party, and that the first party shall have the right to sue for said payment, as having been made under protest and by compulsion of the circumstances. And, if the court shall decide that the said expense should have been borne by the second party, then the first party shall be entitled to judgment against the second party for said payment, amounting to $150.\u201d\n(Here signature of parties.)\nPlaintiffs say that said demand of the defendant was exorbitant, unlawful, and that said sum was paid under compulsion and that it has been received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs therefore pray judgment for the amount thereof, with interest and costs. \u2022\nThe appellee demurred to the complaint. Its demurrer was sustained, and from a judgment dismissing their complaint appellants have duly prosecuted this appeal.\nRose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough and A. H. Roivell, for appellant.\nIt is the duty of railroads to construct and keep in repair all crossings of public roads, and the appellee is liable. Acts 1909, p. 850; 75 Ark. 532; 166 U. S. 226; 202 Id. 562. See also C. M. S St. P. By. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, ms. op. U. S. Sup. Ct., April 3, 1914.\nE. W. Brochman, E. B. Kinsworthy, T. D. Crawford and W. T. Wooldridge, for appellee.\nThe railroad company is not liable, and the demurrer was properly sustained. Statutes should be so construed as to render them constitutional. 66 Ark. 466. The taking of a portion of a railroad track for public use without compensation is unconstitutional. 166 H. S. 241; 200 Id. 561; 15 Cyc. 696; 16 N. Dak. 313; 76 Neb. 396; 75 Ark. 534; lb. 530."
  },
  "file_name": "0537-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 562
}