Daniel v. Doyle

HART, J., (after stating the facts). The record shows that the railroad runs east and west at the place where the public road crosses the railroad and that the station is west of the crossing. The order of the county court establishing the road concludes the description of the road as follows: ‘ ‘ Thence north about 300 yards to the north side of the right of way of the M. & N. A. Railroad; thence in a westerly direction to the station of the M. & N. A. Railroad. ’ ’ The record shows that the first clause carried the public road across the railroad. It also shows that the flag station of Capps is a short distance west of the crossing. At the time the county court made the order approving the report of the viewers and establishing the public road passengers were received upon and discharged from the trains on the south side of the railroad at Capps. Hence it is insisted that the order of the county court established the road on the south side of the railroad from the crossing to the station. It is true that the court in St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Neal, 66 Ark. 543, said that a railroad station is a place where passengers are received upon and discharged from railroad trains; but the court was speaking with reference to our statute requiring local freight trains to carry passengers from and to all its stations. In its broad sense and in its common signification, a station is a place at which both freight and passengers are received for transportation or are delivered after transportation and includes a flag station. Inasmuch as the first clause of that part of the order quoted carried the public road across the railroad to the north side of the right of way, we think the last clause of the description meant to locate the road on the land north of and adjacent to the right of way of the railroad from the crossing to the station, and that the word station means the place where freight is loaded upon and unloaded from the cars. This point was as much a part of the station as the point on the south side where passengers were received and discharged. Otherwise we must hold that the court intended the road to recross the railroad in order to construct the public road on the south side thereof; for as we have already seen the first clause takes the public road across the railroad to the north side of the right of way. Therefore, we think that the last clause means in a westerly direction from the north side of the right of way at the crossing to the place on the north side of the railroad where freight was received and delivered. It follows that the court erred in granting the in-, junction. Therefore, the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the chancery court to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff for want of equity.