Arkansas Reports; Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Arkansas Volume 35

Arkansas Reports; Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Arkansas Volume 35

By (author) 

List price: US$9.62

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1881 edition. Excerpt: ...torts. 4. TRESPASS: Pleading: Vt at armis not necessary allegation. It is not necessary in trespass to allege in terms that the injury was done vi et armis. EAKIN, J. Appellee, a widow, occupying the farm of her deceased husband, together with some of his children, as a homestead, joined the heirs in a suit against the company, for entering upon the land and building through it a road-bed. There had never been any administration on the estate. They simply allege that defendants, without their consent, and without compensating them, or oflering to do so, for damages sustained, or yet to be sustained, entered upon a portion of the lands constituting the farm, and constructed a solid embankment, nearly a quarter of a mile long, through open fields. They say that by reason thereof, the lands and fields came to be overflowed and washed, and they were, in a great measure, deprived of the use of them in cultivation. Damages are laid at $800. Defendant denies the want of permission, setting up the written consent of plaintiff, Sarah Dyer, who, it alleges, had control of the premi.-es. It denies, also, that the overflow of water was caused by the embankment. The material evidence, the effect only of which is stated in the bill of exceptions, showed tl at in 1877 nearly all of the premises were so overflowed by water as to be unfit for cultivation, and that the damages to the premises was " from $50 to $800." There was some testimony tending to prove that said inundation was can.-ed by the embankment; and, for the defendant, some to the contrary. It was proved that defendant put a culvert in the embankment of suflicient capacity to admit the flow of ordinary rain-falls; and that the land had been used to overflow before, but not more

Product details

  • Paperback | 202 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 11mm | 372g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236882857
  • 9781236882851