129 Mo. 455 | Mo. | 1895
Plaintiff, a business corporation, sues defendant, a railroad corporation, the object of which was to enjoin defendant from building and maintaining double tracks of its railway on the east side of Hall street, in front of plaintiff’s property. A demurrer to the petition was sustained and plaintiff appealed. •
The facts as shown by the petition are in substance as - follows: Hall street, one hundred feet in width, runs north and south in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff owns land fronting on the east side of said street eight hundred and eighty feet. He acquired and uses
Eor several years prior to the institution of the suit under authority of ordinances of the city the center part of Hall street had been occupied by four tracks of two steam railways. The whole of the east side of the street is thereby taken up by these railway tracks, except the sidewalk and about four feet adjacent thereto.
In December, 1889, the city of St. Louis passed an ordinance whereby defendant was authorized to construct and operate a railroad with double tracks along Hall street in front of the property of plaintiff. In pursuance of the authority contained in this ordinance, plaintiff located and afterward constructed two railroad tracks oh the east side of said street where the same abuts upon plaintiff's property. The tracks so built practically occupy the whole of the sidewalk, by which the street is rendered utterly useless as a public thoroughfare for ordinary travel and plaintiff is permanently hindered in the use of the sidewalk and street, as well as ingress to and egress from his property, etc.
The foregoing statement is sufficient to show that the facts make a case in all material particulars the same as that of Knapp, Stout & Co. v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 26.
In the case of Lockwood v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 86, it •was held that the city of St. Louis could not authorize the construction and operation of a steam railroad through a street so narrow that such use will necessarily destroy it as a public way and deprive abutting owners of access to their property. It was further held in that ease that the property owner was entitled to injunctive relief.
The petition of plaintiff makes as strong a showing for equitable relief as was made in either of these cases. For the reasons given in them the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with leave to the defendant to plead to the petition if it desires to do so.