Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

The York And Cumberland Railroad Company, Plaintiffs In Error, v. John G. Myers

1855 • 59 U.S. 246 • Taney Court
The York and Cumberland Railroad Company brought a case against John G. Myers in the Supreme Court of the United States. The company argued that it had been granted an easement by Pennsylvania to build its railroad on certain lands, including those owned by Myers. However, Myers refused to allow them access and instead sued for trespass when they attempted to enter his property without permission. The Supreme Court held that while the state could grant such an easement, it did not have...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taney Court
Term: 1855
59 U.S. 246
15 L. Ed. 380
1855 U.S. LEXIS 694
Argued: Feb 18, 1856

The York And Cumberland Railroad Company, Plaintiffs In Error, v. John G. Myers

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The York and Cumberland Railroad Company brought a case against John G. Myers in the Supreme Court of the United States. The company argued that it had been granted an easement by Pennsylvania to build its railroad on certain lands, including those owned by Myers. However, Myers refused to allow them access and instead sued for trespass when they attempted to enter his property without permission. The Supreme Court held that while the state could grant such an easement, it did not have authority over private land owners like Myers who were not parties to the agreement between Pennsylvania and the railroad company; thus, he was within his rights as a landowner in refusing entry onto his property without consent or compensation from him first. As such, they ruled in favor of Myers and dismissed all claims made against him by the railroad company

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of The York and Cumberland Railroad Company v. John G. Myers, the dissenting opinion was that a railroad company should not be allowed to take private property for public use without just compensation being paid to the owner. The majority opinion held that since there had been no actual physical taking of property by the railroad company, they were not required to pay any compensation for it; however, this did not account for how much value would be lost due to their construction project running through or near someone's land. Justice McLean argued in dissent that even if there was no physical taking of property, an individual still has a right to receive fair market value when their land is used in such a way as it affects its potential uses and values going forward. He further stated that while eminent domain laws may allow governments or companies like railroads certain rights over private lands with regards to public projects, those same entities must also provide adequate recompense so as not protect individuals from unjust losses caused by these activities.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms