New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-02-07

81 sYer.isinr the power, AMI perhaps even ths
Tits exercise, rested entirely ~ its AID OF
N court OF equity has right - interfere WIZ & -
81 In eBy case the exercise OF cscrc,ouay :, i,d
ssteT in whom il may b. vesed-s corposse b,nI
Irsis The aldermen Of city, the directors Of p,,
,-s.ee executor or guardian and add hsl tle m :. \;
80 principle Of the rule, and the hnrtat ons 70 ts
srbect are. in al the cases 70 w9ien ~ ave hst the
ssoe The meaning and principle Of the rue - -, ~ ,be
court will not 1bttue is own Jndg1ei' 10 asrme "a
srty in whom the discretion IL vested ana - ana the
ssfA pouer which tie law had given % an0,oei nu
j,rn,taifops 20 which Il subject are tna. ,-,o,es
NUT be exercised within its proper i, ss ~ which
ons tbose who gave the discretion intended tAa' 10 ei-
ese should be governed - han che d;sc-etio, ia
,reTcisedsnd y has no reason 70 be-
heve the fact "a otherwise-but y VII L fG a
has grounds for belistirg that rs 5 ne viossio1
~ preyert base in Justice or 0ppresDh a r. - Il
~ ,rst az tIs contamination Of fraud u ineri'e
and IL Is bound TO soy "a ve..ea ere me-
.sS I'm 's.IIv wsn,opy couqptly 70 trampie upon
rshts end eacr6ce interests "nlch tuoy eln nPS.J
S >, .eS over AID protect Havngststed these prn-
w =, Siscnssion may be regarded as closed since tae
.hplirsfiou Of the principles 70 the case DeiOre ~
d,c1iye | shall therefore oODtIt myself WITH
s.ns 10 few Of the authorities BY which they are sqs-
tanned then proceed 20 apply theory 70 the e, oi 1
case The doctrine which, when stated "a sq9asssa
togp be extracted from the decision Of lo'd td1n IN
ne leading of Agar the Regents Canal Company
Coopeis Eng r. ~ "a that whenever eofpoI iNoa Is
shout TO exceed its power and Apply re hos OF cslt 20
some object beyond is authority and whenever te plf
rose Of the cOrporaO0 II carried out would coDsatusa
breach Of trust court ofeqty cannot reias 70 interfere
md give relief bv an Injunction snd his lord hip said that
this Wholesome exercise OF rshcon, since IL
od be rn ure 1dcsl 10 the interests Of oil with whose
property Of corporation might chOose % in
terere il there not jurisdiction co1tnu1y open
snd ready 70 exercise its powers TO keep them within their
IN the ease of thu River Dan Navigst N Company w.
North Midland Railway Company, q iial WY Cases lj5)
Judge scarcely Inferior 10 Lord Edon IN Judgment learn
ing and TeseeIchpsced the exercise Of irsdic'lon
which be declared himself not NJ liberty 70 withhold. The
o. Frew We Lewis s Que Of those upon which the
counsel iOr the defendants placed reliance fOs l.
in this that Lord CJtsnham dissolved an inJunc
ton egans the POOR Law Commfluners upon the ground
that ts continuance would operate az On undue RESTRAINT
spOn the legal discretion Of bOss important public fanc-
yet in this his orashp careful TO
and maintain the Tghtful jurisdiction Of MS court
and Eed, tEat when pubic f0ncOuaTes are departing
from The powers which The law has vested In them and
assuming power which does belong - tten this Court
longer considers them acting under their commission
but treats them whether coI2rlnol or H2lyiiyala as
persons dealing with property without legal rights and NJ
added that when such persons infringe or violate the
rights OF others they become. Ike ell other lndvduas
trnenabe the jurisdiction OF this Court by Injunction
The force and application Of ts ifnRuage WI! De iiuy
understood when remember that the powers OF the foor
Law Comss toner's legislative Discretionary and pot
tn even In more extensive those Of
Attorney General Aspinwal e NJ and c. 6l3l the
Same VS. Corporation OF York a NJ and c. 5O) and the
Same VS. Mayor of Dublin e Bhsh, y r. 32D proving
that when propeyheid bya municipal corporation scotl'
ed with public duties, the objects 70 which must be ap
propriated applied defined by law there arises a
irust the violation Of which Court Of Equity has not
merely the power bat Is bound to prevent by an injunction
We in a condition TO answer very decsvely the
question propOsedwas tie injunction order directed % the
Corporation void upon its face from the total want OF us
dicon in the Court by which It issued And the
is that assedly II was not there Is any ground
Corporation from making the grant which the order des
crbed and that there many grounds upon which the
restraint could be legally and justly imposed, we deem 1t
DO longer possible 20 doubt.
l. may be that the Corporation has power whatever
eherto establish ITSELF TO grant to others the privilege
Of establishing railway in eny Of the public streets OF the
City; aud whether they have not is question Of law
which belongs not TO the Corporation but 70 Courts Of JUS
ice decide and until the decs the exercise OF the
power may aud ought 70 be restrained
2 IL may be that the Establishment OF railway IN
Broadway would operate es an injurious monopoy dehsr-
mig the bulk OF our citizens OF is beneficial use ana ENJOY
Den and securing them amos, exclusively TO the grantees
othe CORPORATION. The creation of such monopoly would
not only be excess of authority but breach OF trust
which may and ought % be prevesned by m injunction
Itmay be that the building OF railway IN Broadway
from the inconvenience and yOud create
citizens generally and its special injury 70 the inhabitants
would be public nuisance. To prevent the creation OF
nuisance no matter by whom created is not only within
the Jurisdiction VI the Court bu upon proper allegation in
seOmpaint iispontye duty The mode OF relief is an IN
4 il NAV be that the Common Council intended, from
motives OF paray corruption, TO make the grant %
Jacob Sharp and his associates upon trs far less beneficial
than could certainly have been obtained from others thus
debudnR the treasury Of the City and mpf heavy
aud unnecessary burthen upon its tsXpaytg inhabitants
is not TO interfere with legal discretion, but prevent
fragrant breach of trust and the completion OF an extensive
fraud have already said that in the question before rs,
IL Is quite INN eTal whether oil auy these grounds OF
jurisdiction ard relief alleged m the complaint but
~
and distinctly and fully alleged that The Judge VINO
issued the order OF injunction would have nled IN hs
dnty had he refused 90 grant IT, Upon such complani
be had no liberty of refusal Ii p0ss BILE As the counsel
for the defendants have insisted that all toe material leg
in the complaint groundess IN law or IN TACT ana
that hereafter may ourselves Dc saghed that they are
so hut shall not now 90 express intimate any opinion
questions that only be properly discussed aud con-
sdercd uuon motion dissolve the Injunction upon the
final hearing TIE conclusion at which have arrived an
which sseriy follows from the obscy d.onS thAI
have thht the order OF injunction which Adersn
Stutey refused 30 Obey valid exercise OF the osta
bshed jurisdiction OF this Court and consequently t1ht
cause has been shown why attachment should
net issue against him for the contempt q which from mo
papers before he appears 70 have been guilty In TINS
conclusion all the judges who assisted c-by each WHOM
separately all the questions in the case have been carefully
ndeutrely concur The motion for al attachment
is thereioro granted
Al the ammo uncement OF the decision there was a
manifestation Of applause the part of the audience,
which was Immediately suppressed.
Judge Duer then stated that it might be considered
Singular that he had omitted to comment on the indie
eeney and injustice regards Mr. Justice Campbell OF
the resolutions which passed the Board Of Aldermen in
relation to the injunction coming too the resolutions
did from set Of men whose duty from their position,
twas TO uphold the lawsbu he would refer in regard
to this to the remarks of Judge Mason in Sanaforas
Reports in decision in a case in which party hsd
refused to obey injunction in which the necessity
for the good of all Ia obeyiqg the laws pointed out
and cong a,ulaton that the great of the public
disposed to respect and sustain them Judge Mason
said:
We live under government OF laws. Il is one Of the
peculiar fecilies oi condition that the moral
Of the community is strongly upon the side of obedience
to the law Tits The peculiar duty OF those who profess
snd will add all who are concerned in the administers
ton OF iustce and the execution Of the lawt is es
peciay their duty 10 eeyCie aud hcn the spirit Of
obedience to judicial authority and il Is matter Of deep
regret when any Of those whose province Il is to aid In
any menner IN the administrator OF Justice by their
owneSsmple encourage gard OF the decisions of
Is courts or any OF liz iudxcS
Mr.. o'Conor then rose. as did Mr. Field, AMI dis.
claimed the idea that there remedy for Legislative
action The Judge said he clearly understood the
entimeni TO be, that the members, in their public ca.
raeity, are nos responsible TO the Courts
Mr. Van Barren inquired Of the Court if it would
aear the case as TO the other members
Judge Duer stated tha; AID Starteyant had better be
Brought w trs AFTER which the matter in relation to