The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-01-16
The broadway Railroad Injunction Case.

SUPERIOR CoURr-GENERAL TERM.
The Hon. Judges Duer, Campbell, Bosworth and
Emmett, presiding.
JAN. 15.-Thomas Z. Ddris and Co,rtlanN Palmer u.s.
The Mayor, Aldermen and Conano,alty Of The Cay of
Ne'o York.-The argument in this case was commencel
to-day. II was to show why injunction issued
against the defendants, should not be made per.
petual Tie injunction restrained them from grant
ing TO- or in any manner authorizing Jacob Sharp
and others, their associates, or any other per.
perrons whomsoever, the right liberty
privilege Of laying a double or any track for a
railroad N the street known Broadway in said city oil
New York from the South ferry to Ffysevcnth street
railroad whatsoever in said Broadway and from
brcnking removing the pavement in said street or in
other manner obstructng said street preparatory
for the puro of laying establishing any railroad
therein until the further order OF this Court in the pre-
misses.
II is alleged that subsequent to the service of this in
junction. the defendants passed resolutions granting the
privilege OF laying railroad in Broadway and an order
was then issued for them to show cause why attach
should be issued against them for contempt Of
Court in sobeyng the Injunction issued and served on
each OF them in this action.
The array of counsel each side the greatest we
have seen Tor some time, and includes of the
profound lawyers Of the New York bar
The plaintiffs represented by cxChef Justice Bron-
son, Messrs George Wood, John Van Buren, J. W. Gerard
Henry Hilton, JAS r. Whiting and VIM. McMurray
For the defendants, Messrs. r. j. Dillon, Corporation
Counsel ext hief Justice Jones Hon f. D. Cutting D. D.
Field, and Edward Sandford.
The following are the points for the plaintiffs, the
order to show Why attachment should not
against the defendants for contempt -
1.-The Court had jurisdiction the parties, and
the subject matter OF the complaint and having -
rdicon, the question whether the order for injunc
ton made upon proper and sufficient grounds does
not arise upon this motion.
) The Court has jurisdiction corporations as well
natural persons.
(2) The plaintiffs complained that injury was about
TO be done to their legal rights by wrongful of
PENDANTS and prayed that defendants might be restrained
from doing the act.
Nothing further necessary to give jurisdiction and
ii then for the Court to judge and decide whether
proper case was made for granting the relief which the
plaintiffs asked And whena court has jurisdiction its
judgment order is never void however 1t
may be.
about to pass Mas in no proper SENSE OF the term act
of hgisation. II not law, but u contract. 1t was
what the Common Council itself called a grant.
But If 1t material to consider whether IL law
grant, that was question upon which the Court
to Judge and il erred in judgment, still its order
valid until it should be reversed or vacated,
(i) If The resolution which the Common Council was
about TO pass may properly be regarded act OF e
gslaton il was still question for the Court to decide
whether relief might not be granted against injury at
tempted to be done in that form and whether the jug
mont was right or wrong, II was not void.
th) We sa contend, at the proper time that there is
no color for the pretence set up by the Common Council
that the power TO make by laws and ordinances for the
government of the Corporation and inhabitants of the
city stands the footing the legislation of the
state, that of Congress- and that in such matters
they above and beyond the reach Of the judiciary
We shall maintain that the Common Council may be
sons, although the wrongful act may take the form Of
by law or ordinance. And clearly this is when the
thing which the Common Council proposes to do though
in the form OF law is in truth grant of the property
privileges Of the city.
But it is enough for the present 10 say that whether it
proper TO enioin the corporation in this
question the Court 10 decide and whether its judg
right wrong, II valid until reversed or
annuled.
$50 long injunction remains in force, il must
be obcycd although il may have been enormously or
even Irregular Issued
3.-lhe in al IN to rcsran the making of the grant
was potery dressed TO the Corporation and when
served the order operative upon every branch and
oflicia member Of the corporate body.
4.-There breach Of the injunction by every
member of the Corporation who after the service Of the
order, voted TO make the grant.
Every such member acted in direct contempt Of the au
thory OF the Court and the comma ndmcnt of the law
5.-When any acts in an official character in dsre
gsrdng injunction order Of the Court IL Is not the
officer but the individual who is punished for the con
tempt.
6-Ihs Is the most aggravated case Of contemning the
Court and its process that has happened in modern times
and II il il not followed by exemplary punishment II
will be impossible 10 maintain the administration of JUS
tica In future.
= q o'oi,. as coar. a al.os-nci u, c,j> oc, W
saturday next