The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-12-28
Supreme Court.


Before Judges Jones. Edmonds, Hurbut and Edwards.
DEc 27-The Court delivered their decisions in the
Hudson Rirsr RaiiroGs.-Judge Jones delivered most
voluminous opinion In this case, which appca
tion for an injunction to restrain the Hudson River
Railroad Company from proceeding with their opera
lions, and to compel them to remove much Of the
line as they had aliesdy laid down The learned Judge
commenced by stating the provisions Of the act read
Ing several Of the sections in detail and then proceeded
to mention az .utenso, the grounds Of the complaint
made by the plaintiffs and the thereto put in
by the defendants in the The first complaint Is
that the defendants occupied ground which belonged
the plaAts either in fee fer term of years; the
the objection that no land had been taken
for the purpose but that which occupied by and
belonged to the municipal authority of the city that
the plaintiffs have shown title in themselves to any
part Of the land soil 1t averred that the two plain
tifs residing in Canal street have prstensons of
claim with respect to of the other three plaintiffs
in Hudson street. is stated that those under whom
she derived had lease prior to the grant TO the Corpo
PLANT and .he by the terms of her eceptance has
tipguished her right. The city authorities would be
equally Unauthorized to close tbs streets except the
authority Of the law and any obstruction would be
nuisance punishable at the instance of those who might
be specially greved or damaged thereby The Corpora
ton OF the city have by the ancient charter abb
roRated and still in force the and regula-
tion Of the public Streets and always have are
exercising these powers they prescribe the sidewalks
and direct the mode and manner of sewerage, So
Tor various purposes and for public and private use
and receive compensation for the Of the vaults
der the side walks it would seem that the legal title
to the land and soil should reside In them The Court
did not stop to examine the antagontica allegations
charter apply to the constitution Of the case; or
whether 1t requires all the members Of both branches
OF the Corporation in order to make eectua These
formalies apply to acts of Legislature, and they
quire whatever form the byelaw may assume who has
right to complain, and require the defendants to
move the rails The plaintiffs cannot complain that
the defendants trespassers the land require
that compensation should be made to them The rights
OF the Corporation are the only rights which be said
to be usurped but the Corporation imputes wrong
and takes no step against the railroad being laid down
They tacity give their assent to the operation. The
plaintiffs complain that their lots are injured, and
claim compensation, and that the railroad company
ought to be restrained until such compensation Is
made The right Of the defendants to lay down the
line will lot protect them from the damages OF the par
ties sqgrieved The plaintiffs insist that they not
to wait until the loss damage is actually Incurred
but that they entitled to protective
remedy and they, therefore apply for an in
junction. The injury Of which the plaintiffs COM
plain, is tie impaired value Of their property
by the alleged mpediment Of crossing the streets and
and dcuty of access to them ana the dagger to-
tbe mselves and their families by the passing Of the
cars Upon conflicting afiidsvts, the court asked
to form conclusion whether the railroad in its
cupspcy s sble to the objections urged against It, or
railroads and their sccommosston 70 the nphiic NJ
large admit Of doubt; but these considerations
not authorize or justify any entertainments Of indi
vdusl rights; but the plaintiffs can claim further
use OF the streets than all other citizens The example
OF the Harlem Company shows that the Of railroads
In the city Improperly guarded and regulated 10 COM
pstible with the simultaneous trafhc OF all other
vehicles. seine Inconvenience arise they Of
tucb sepitude as to induce the court 70 compel the
defer Giants toremove the track already laid down or
restrain them from further proceedings much
stronger case must be presented to their view and more
imminent danger be justify their interference
The court therefore, felt constrained TO deny the in
junction.
sgreed with the Chief Justice and had written their
opinions, which could be with the clerk
Anne Cornell ads. U1iiiidm Short.-Motion to set
aside report Of referee denied with costs.
Richard Coz and Others appellants Harrey Winston
and Of Surrogate reversed and feigned
John II. Moore rs. Geo. L. Meseham-Judsment of su-