The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1853-06-29
From the Chicago Democratic Press
THE RAILROAD CROSSING.


The Injunction crse betpeen the Northern In
diana and Chicag, Railroad Company COM
plainant, and the Illinois Central Railroad
defendant, involving the right to the crossing at
the point where the late collision occurred, has
been decided.
The defence set Up was mainly predicted upon
an allegation denying the corporate existence of
the Northern Indiana and Chicago Company at
the tire it's road vas constructed. The facts
upon which is corporate existence depended
were fully stated n. The bill and admitted by the
answer. The Judge, in an able and lengthy
opinion, decided thai the facts thus stated and
ad nitted, gave the complainants full corporate
powers for every purpose, except the right to
condemn lands and appropriate it without the
consent of the owners.
g That it had power to purchase and hold
lands necessary for he purpose of building its
road, and the right = cons ruct and operate lis
road upon lands thusacquircd.
3. That the compaints having acquired the
right Of way by puchase, and constructed
railway track, and beng in possession, running
cars at the time, andbetore the construction ct
the track of the llinGs Central, The act of max.
inc the crossing com Elained of and running cars
| across the complainaIt's road with ut its con-
sent and against its express protest, was tres
pass, the continuance of winch the Court has
power to res ram.
A. That the objections taken by the defend
ant, that the complainant has remedy at law BY
mandamus to compel the defendant TO JOIN IN
choosing commissioners under the statute, t.
6 nj
"tenable," as the complainant could not sue out
such writ in this case, nor would an action OF
e;ectmont or of trespas, or trespass on the case
afford an adequate remedy. The damages sus
tanned by the complainant cannot be estimated
| or recovered in any such action.
5. That compliments being the owners of the
land, rights of way aud track, and possession
are entitled TO the protection OF their property
and franchise in specie.
b. That the objection made by the defendant
counsel, that the complainanls should have thel
title settled by trial at law before seeking an in
junction. has no application to this case, because
the complainants not only showed clear ttl'
upon the facts stated in the bill and answer, but
were in possession under their title, and the de-
PENDANTS were trespassers, and continue to De
So
The case was argued by Messrs. Judd Frinl
and Collins tor compartments MeSSrs Dlach'
W I'll, Beckwith, and Brayman, for defendants
The above is mere statement of the point
decided The Judge reviewed all the author
tiles cited on the argument, and occupied owe
two hours in delivering his opinion After de-
Gliding all the questions made by the pie aiding
| and arguments, in favor OF the complainan
the Judge remarked that he would hold the cas-
over, without ordering an injunction at present
| if tie defendant would stIpulate TO select com
missoners, and in good faith proceed to hav
the place and manner of crossing and the com
pensation to be made to compliments. settle
and decided by commission and would stpulat
keep its at trains out of the way Of complain
ants trains at the present crossing. But
case of any neg ect so to do, he would order
| injunction Immediately upon proof of sue
ne glect
| The stipulation on the part of the Defendant
was filed on Saturday afternoon. We shall OF
tain copy for our next Issue