Case ID: njl_72/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Swayze, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE PATERSON AND RAMAPO RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF PATERSON.
    Argued November 4, 1904
    Decided February 27, 1905.
    The facts show that the point where the proposed street is to cross the railroad is the prosecutor’s freight yard; the ordinance is therefore set aside, on the authority of New York, Susquehanna, and Western Railroad Co. v. Paterson, 32 Vroom 408.
    
      On certiorari.
    
    Before Justices Dixon and Swayze.
    For the prosecutor, Collins & Gorlin.
    
    For the defendant, Vivian M. Lewis.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

The evidence in this case satisfies us that the point at which the proposed street crosses the railroad tracks is, properly speaking, a freight yard. There are side tracks, cars are unloaded and trains made up at this point, and it is used as a storing yard. All the tracks have been there and the present use has been continued for twenty-three years. That the city of Paterson has no authority to lay out a street across the freight yard of a railroad company has been decided by this court. New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Co. v. Paterson, 32 Vroom 408.

The ordinance should be set aside, with costs.