L. R., M. R. & T. R'y Co. v. Shelton & Wells

Cockrill, C. J.

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.