The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-12-15

ton of the statute that the decision Of the Uuitsd
States Judge or commissionsr was conclusive. The
Judge therefore refused to interfere with the United
States court, and the prisoners will have to apply to
that tribunal.
Superior Count.
Present the Chief Justice, Justices Sanford and
Paine.
IMPORTANT RAIL ROAD CASE.
DEC. 14.-In the matter Of 'n Hudson Riuer Rail Road
rs John S. Lieingstom an application on the
part Of the Company fer the appointment of FIVE Com
the defendants the OF real estate situate in
the town OF Redbook County of Duchess required by
the company for the construction of their rail- road
The application resisted the part Of the de-
fendants the ground that in september last the
application of the railroad company. Mr.. Justice
Browne OF the State JUDGES at special term held
at Newburgh. appointed fse Commissioners, who ap-
praised the premise award thu defen
$1,000 as compensation, aud that it IL not
petent the company TO obtain new appraise ment
The appcatoni also resisted several other grounds
but that IL the principal
Mr. Thompson, lawyer OF Poughkeepsie, on the part
Of the railroad company, stated the preliminary pro
ceedings which the statue required the company to
take, and read affidavit made by their engineer He
then stated that in regard to the objection taken to the
jurisdiction of the Court the suthorses app
cations to be made either to the Supreme Court
the Superior Court in the City OF New York.
Mr. q. Livingston-W also object the ground that
OF 1850 in xion with the act otlsas hs charter
Mr. Thorn pson-The company proceeded under their
charter, and not bound by the provisions Of ths
itatute OF 1850 We go strictly by chsrter and
adversaies have raised question in their papers
that point.
Mr. Thompson in continus on-There il also ques-
ton in regard certain other facts We contend that
they acquired right to the money until the sompa
ny took steps to become seized OF the lands and
having done the parties have vested interest In
courts Of This city time. Neither party y .o
quires vested rights until the company proceed
the Commissioners award each party remains Is they
were before, as and IL Wendell | know the su-
prtme Court had made q contrary decision, but the
Court of Errors reversed it, and in doing sad that
public because II presumed tthat the latter
funds always at their disposal pay any demands
or company such as the Hudson River Railroad Com
pany not presumed that they had funds at their
dspo,al on the contrary, might turn out that they
nsolvent and therefore they not permitted
to take possession Of the property until II was paid for
tn; ssoa sns q 70
the afndays Of the parties upon their opinion
however, that the change in the road Is not IN In
proyement But the Court will not pay much attention
to the opinions Of upprofessienal persons. when
show that We have altered line under the report
and directors of the company and We claim that We
have right to make alteration at any time under
our charter-the Court cannot and viii not disturb
In the exercise OF rights when II becomes ne
cessary for the interest Of the company exercise
them They also object that By our nrst valuation We
them they come into this court prevent and to
compel us against our will, to completes thar own
ard to meet them fairly We have shown By our an
d.
enthusiastically But, they say Why not proceed under
the old valuation, and con pste m Our to that
o.sDs, are inv,asteS and Il il. therefore, f i%-
possible for us to acquire title TO real estate under
Mr. 0uthout, on behalf Of James outhout, opposed
the II vas the object Of the company
to get rid Of the dsnsges so appeared BY one 81
BY this affidavit appears that hey have taken al
dtonal strip Of land and this IL Of the poiats by
which they wantths Court TO listen this novel app.
cation The hh section other act gives them
make alterations and 70 apply for mssioners and
tSs linz 81 ths,. rG.a s ns ss the ;s n
meaning Of the act because II evidently appears that
the act Substantial alteration end not
. merely nominal one; that H. that there should be
substantial difference between the old and the
lines In other vords that the alterations should
that the company make such alterations - they
please and when they please, this act does not pro-
upon an ss.min.ton Of the second map the line,
which indicates the alteration, 10 merely nominal
We also contend that Thu. Court should be Of OPT
MON that tho alteration within the spirit and mean
Ing OF the act then insist that made for i'm
proper purposes that the directors Of this Company
obliged to exercise them with Judgment and discretion
say, therefore, they have right ana cannot deter
and the decision Of tbs Directors allowed TO settle
this question then, say, this court IL but the
their lin. Of road once th.y can do i to issnsy SUP
ss.in 70 hall foot and 90 ad Itin- Now, in re.
always open and that both themselves and thslr
that their resident epginees lived in sight o. Il, asd
must have IL daily That the institution Of those
Company the oosrt cannot fail to see ana submit
therefore, that their motives properly before the
court and the court sees that their object 70 get
rid Of the old valuation aud procure . one
more favourable to hsnseives, then the court IL
bound to deny the motion, because a. question Of
circumstances Of this case, II the court pleasee,
are very peculiar The defendant shows that . map
four or ave msnths since, and the map hled in the
county clerks Office In the county Of Dutchess and
awarded these parties their com psnsation Asd nov
for the FIRST time hear OF this motion to improve
the line say. those circumstance gives us right
TO charge the company with improper motives. How
comes IL pass that they did not see this high
wsy. before the damages under tbs FIRST valustion
ing, that there IA sonsthing unfair about IL.
Mr. Rorlsy, on the part OF Peter Outhout then rose
nd said that whstbsd been said BY the counsel
that preceded him. scs,c,ly necessary for him to
address the court, wold lie trouble them with sny
Ths said Mr. RovIeyis IL the second sppiostion the
cor psny has made. IL this vas the first application,
the court would be bound only to look Into their pro-
two applications without any substantial difference,
and the court bound TO look in 10 the merits
regularity, then contend that they have made
substantial alteration; they keep withn the bounds
Of the former line and only edge out few feet there
fore the alteration s rtbin the 5th section OF the
act for this the viii look into the pro-
cetdines, and II they find there IL not good faith
the part Il ths company, they should refuse the
tion Now " seems to me that they only vaat dimi-
mutton Of damages and under tucb circumstances the
court will old them to strict compliance with the
act for evidently they have Cthsr object In Gem nE
into this court, but TO diminish the amount OF COM
pensstion.
Mr. @. Livingston on behalf Of John q Livingston.
then ar said the first point he would state ip
this matter l the Company bound by the lesion
award That award IL based upon agreement
bet the paties and has the force aud effect
Of the verdict cf jury and s equally binding under
the act Of 1s46 a verdict aud this being legal
award under agreement 81 the Company they are
bound by II Suppose the Company had made con-
tract with Lvineston, and they Afterwards proposed
to refer - to commissioner TO be appointed by JadS0