Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-09-06
DECISIONS OF THE sUPREME COURT.
Opinions OF the Supreme Court OF the
state Of Tennessee, at Jackson, Deeem-
ber Term, 1858.

| Oer Aer1nS 1885,
Mississippi Tennessee Rareai cOmpsny John
4 l. Lancaster. Maria % Btgeiow and Others.
On the sh Of september 1854 the plaintiff aoved the Crnit
the for necessary be taken or
the RalrNaI The application granted and the commission
BgeloW 70 ss0 for and fraction taken from her No
appeal taken BY her AMI the made to the Court
her behalf the report eonrmei and the title e the iAa d
vested oa G her and vested the Paat 50 sOon as the v4us
aforesaid IS paid rendered. After one year had elapsed
from this judgment Of the Court petition fed fsr writ
| Of error c1raza zOlis.
The ound the petition among Others not asees
saEy to notice. is T. the Court ha jurisdiction Of the
because the 9Th charter Acts Of ie5 required that
xneaort ayres upon the value s ana aii De
/ fore the application could be made 70 the Courts
agreement existed 70 settle and adjust mStte between n
selves BY uegotiatons refer This the main error Of fact
the nse q the viii OF errer el aos The Circuit Court
sustained demurrer to the petition, eSed ne application,
on other is does the
authorize tn. issuance Of the writ and the relief demAnded We
In the original proceedings Il said that judgment
given for the eight hundred dollars damages and that should be
1he nctbeOrs us reach that question:
any error OF law hat may e1s in the case are eehnnd TO
the mode Shch he recovered from the
Cpary hut certainly. there be ncuiy shout that
The only question proper' before IS, whether the Circuit
Co erred refusing TO grant the prayer OF peon nd
the position assumed in the petition, argumeot here.
rect proper mode obtain the ad snage Of it, For
it clear that shs mater Defense that the ap
was properly rejected considering then, the queon
pF FJpery presented have d hieuty IN deciding 1t.
The provisions -eon Of n charter which Is not
di from all railroad charters, IN this state
Is that where he Cmpany All Of the land
squ for the road se1 the terms OF puIeha
and the Goarts shall appo commsnsrs 10 value the
taken The position ed is. Ih> this ia eond
pre- until e,mplied with, taa is, until
agree made AMI fills that the Cpurs have turs
don. We think this IS the proper construction Of
the sct.
underst9os in Of the numerous
viii IA have unr charters containing sm
lar provisions such question has ever heen ma e.
The Company perfect right % take land Tor Their road
without nsgostOn, and guilty OF no respass
There the soil right Just as perfect
and unqueonabe jas compensation The reference 10 the
charter 70 the proba iii that the parties might agree Etheu
TO the Courts intended TO nske eonoon 70
the jurisdiction barely ncogn Of the right OF the
parties settle the without tEaOD Sheh they would
enjoyed Just fully without it, in that we'll ether
II surpuage in the act and legal eject be
9Ven to il.
The construction eonende for would be exceedingly ineenve
nnt, and in some eases ipsetcabe Thf owners Of the soil
might he residents unkOwn or under disability.
The fact stated that there understanding beFeen the
parties be settled by agreem-ut 1t the
the report made alter se this pro
etedag The party pro oOe and should Lave attended
the the rig Thare APPEAL from the &C
Court, any writ Ct
from that urt this but permitted to bstore
this peculiar resOre to- The Circuit Court right
in rsfu ing it, ard We affirm the Judgment CASrTsERs
Test: NJ. WELcH, Clerk.