Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1849-07-28
THE FREDERICKSBURG AND LOUISA
RAILROADS.

At me request OF correspondent, whose commu-
mcatlon we subjoin, we insert in another column,
the opinion delivered by Judge Clopton, ON Tuesday
last, in the important injunction case between the
Fredericksburg and Louisa Railroad Companies
1t will be perceived that in the brief statement ofhe
case, which we gave in our paper of Thursday, we
did some injustice to the counsel of the Fredericks-
burg Company, by stating that the Judge decided
against every point whictyhey raised Weintended
to be understood as meaning that the prayer for an
injunction was denied upon each of the three grounds
set forth in the BILL Or in other and still more exact
words, that each of the three several iniunctons
prayed for in the bill was refused These were lst
That the Louisa Company be enioned from con-
structng their railroad from the Junction to Rich
mond I'd. That they be enjoined from crossing the
fredericksburg road ; and 3dly. That they be en-
joined from carrying passengers who might be ira
Yelling from Richmond to Washington, or for any
part of the intermediate distance. There is no diff
ticuty about the first two applications the Judge re-
jects them without qualification. He rejects the
Sd Also but upon the ground that the time has not
arrived for the question involved in the prayer to
arise, and ntmates that when it shall arrive, the
plaintiffs remedy will probably be by an action at
| law for damages.
We think our esteemed correspondent does not
write with legal precision when he says that Judge
Clopon decided that by the guaranty in the charter
ofthe Fredericksburg Company the Legislature in
tended to secure that company Sin the right trans
port all travellers passing along the line of their road
for any portion ofits distance, who in the absence of
any other railroad connected with it would find it
| convenient to use it a means of travelling
The Judge certainly gives that opinion, but does
not form part of his decision, which is simply to
dismiss the bill, as to this point, with costs. He
dismsses ii because there is now no ground for the
injunction asked. He thinks that hereafter, when
a new case shall arise, and possibly before an
other Judge, the Fredericksburg Company should
be protected in their claim to the travel referred TO-
The case now practically rests in tits attdude that
the Louisa Company is permitted to construct their
road to Richmond, and to cross the Fredericksburg
road; and in the opinion Of Judge Clopton, when it
is completed, they will be prohibited from carrying
passengers properly pertaining to the line between
Richmond and Washington, OF any part of it; but
this will not include passengers whom they bring tc
that line
1t is due TO the gentleman who gave us the infor
nation upon which our first statement was based
that had his abstract of the case been published
ii would have been had there been time 10 print il
no injustice could have been complained of
| COMMUNICATED.
The report OF the decision tine cases of the Richmond
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company apains
the Louisa Railroad Company and Of the latter copan,
against the former, which appeared in your paper OF the
10Th inst Is somewhat inaccurate as will be perceived BY
reference to the opinion delivered by the Judge copy
which is sent to you and which you will please publish
Il Is true that the injunction prayed for by the Frede
rcksburg Company decided, but the court adopting
the construction OF the guarantee clause in their charter
as contendcd for by their counsel and resisted by te
opponents, decided that by Just and proper construction
OF Inc 5ot section OF that charter taking it all together
they also intended to be secured in the right TO aspor
all travellers passing along the line of their road for am
portion OF ats disdnce who, in the absence OF any ohe
railroad connected with would find convenient TO st
it as means of travelling That may be difficult tc
IRON which these passengers would come )" that thai
must depend upon the facts OF each particular case as
may arise J. and further, that If the Louisa Company
shall hereafter use their road the injury OF Fede
r1chspurg company transporting passengers
OF the rights secured by the 38th section OF their charter
the remedy By action at idio seems 10 the court pl,
| easy md adequate; If hoUeUer, 1t should from am
cause prone TO be inadequate, may be proper to inter
pose by injunction; that wM depend upon the facts of M
case as ii may then appear, etc'
A SUBSCRIBER