L. R., M. R. & T. R'y Co. v. Shelton & Wells
45 Ark. 446 | Ark. | 1885
This case is controlled by the 'decision in Hot Springs Railway v. Williamson, ante. No distinction can be drawn, for the purpose of maintaining the action, between obstructing ■ the access to premises by the erection of an embankment in the street, as in that case, and by making a cut next to the plaintiff’s premises, as in this. Caledonia R’y v. Walker's trustees, 35 Moak, 177, and cases collected in the note.
Affirm.
