Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-09-10

-ing another rail road Ia IN laid across it end piy'n
such damages As may accrue 10 the ir't in c5D.e-
Quencr thereof"
Bird That it the Louisa Company, (now the Vir-
GINA Central 1houd thereafter use iher road by
transporting passengers in violation If ihs rights
guaranteed I" compliments by The 3Sth section and
there should be no adequate r-in-dy NJ law. il might
be proper To Interfere by injunction 10 enforca suri
proceeding.
The coinpAinanr's bill wa, dismiss on these
grounds. and the decree in tIs having been
affirmed by The Court Of Appsss, the then
taken by tho complanaDts 10 the Supreme Court OF
the United States. The Supreme Court OF ,hs United
st-s decided, ls', That the stipulation in the StH
section WAS 10 be construed rlricly against the
curporson-2l That it WAS not violated merely by
chart7ring another Rail Rond which might b. used
rrc'nSr'iy TO transport mSrrhdHdis'. The opinion OF
four of the Judye. himself included b-ny Il majority
OF the Court delivered by Judge Grier, Whale
three Of the JUDGES Curtis, Wayne and Mclean.
dissented; Judge Daniel declining to sit in the
because ol being stockholm in tbs Richmond aud
fredericksburg Company. Judge Curtis delivered n
learned and powerful dss-ICirg opinion on the part
Of the minority, in favor Of eniOnug the uipa road
from the construction Of their line from the Junction
10 the city NJ Richmond II j. plain, from all thu
that thu question of the construction nj the rad. from
the Junction to the city Of Richnnnd by the Louisa
COMPANY, az authorised by the act of the 23rl OF
March, 1913. WIS the nnty question decided by the
Cour, in favor OF that Company on The ground that
the stipulation in the charter of The Richmond and
fredericksburg Company was NOT violated merely
by chsrfering another road. "hich might 6e used tL
r!nSjrciy IN transport merchandise.
Now | am informed by the gentleman Of whom
have heretofore spoken that tho bund and stock.
holders of III. Richmond and Fredericksburg Com
pnny do not pretend at this time, TO the pro
prety of ths iec-ion. They submit, with ~ good
grace possible. 10 the wisdom of msoriy Of the
Suprems Court although il 10 clear that the L-gsla
turs of Virginia, procure subscriptions TO the Ric
Inond and Fredericksburg Railroad in 1894. promised
fhoss cifiz-ns OF Philadelphia aud elsewhere, who
osned their money in reliance such promise, do
Whist has not BEEN performed The matter Of which
hay complain hiss arisen since the decision in this
case. Ii appears that the Louisa company known at
this time in connection with other rOsds the Eir
GINA Central Railroad Company. had sooner com
pl-,ed their road from the Junction To the City Of
Richmond, than thsy not only transported freight
and merchandise over their line, but commenced TO
carry way" passengers and for tune back have
gone far boldly to advertise for and to carry
Through" passengers not only those goirg merely
between the City OF Richmond and the City of Wash
ingfon, but those going further North and South
Nearly. quite ire years ago tue Richmond and
Frederick sburg Company filed bill in the Superior
Court OF Chancery for the Richmond circuit, and
prayed for injunction To restrain the Virginia Cen
trail Railroad Company from violating the stipulation
concerning trarc, admitted BY oil been guar
snte-d them by their act of Incorporation, and in
which, it really sees to noe, they cannot be disturbed
tor The period limited 10 The act unless ib. good tain
Ut th- State shall be sacrifced to that end. have
carefully read the cs.e in rs Howard, 20 which you
have kindly referred me-; and nl-o 'he proceecines
III ID, suit before the Superior Judge IN Chahcery
10 the Richmond Circult-hnd when refer 10 the
declarations OF the Judges, both State and federal
when giving their opinions in the case ana 10 'ne