, 1860-02-29

The Injunction Against the TIorsc
Railway over Clark Street Bridge.
The injunction issued against the passage BY
the Common Council of m ordinance authoriz-
ing the North Chicago RAILWAY Company to 1ay
their truck across Clark street bridge, has at
tracted Some attention, the more especially on
account of proceedings instituted against nine
Of the City Fathers for their votes counter to
and disregarding the same. On the application
| to dissolve the injunction, Judge Aanierre in
Circuit Court has given decision which makes
the Injunction perpetual, and is a learned and
able review Of the entire subject.
The decision is Of greater length than our
non.lega1 readers would probably peruse, and
certainly than We can find space for. An out
line Of lis points is the most that We can at-
tempt. 1t is held that to neither the City Rail-
way Company nor tic North Chicago is given
the power to build, maintain or operate road
beyond its territorial limits, neither are therein
the net creating these Companies, words or
phrases authorizing or contemplating the ex-
tension of either road into the territory Of the
other, and this franchise can only be derived
from legislative grant 4 municipal corpora
L.
has no power 10 create such 4 franchise, nor to
allow corpoEatiouto exercise its franchises.
And vet this the Common Council in the or
dnance proposed have clearly attempted, since
if the Common Council has no power to author
ize the North Company to lay down track in
the South Division, then it has no power to
authorize track to be constructed solely for it's
use.
Therefore, whether we regard the ordnance
as an honest and well-1nteniloned piece Of leg
islation, to confer openly and without lndirec-
ton upon the North Chicago Company, the
power to exercise its franchise beyond its terri
torial limits upon d road to be constructed :or
it end to be used in common With it by the Chi
cago City 1tailway Company, or as plan cum
nincly devised to enable the North Chicago
Company to procure track to be laid in the
South Division for The exercise Of its franchises
under cover Of a grant to the other company, IN
either case, the legal effect would be the same.
Upon both grounds the complainants would
be entitled to an injunction.
In another branch Of the case the decision re-
fers to tue rights Of the street property owners
and institutes an inquiry into the nature and
extent Of the rights of the compliments as
owners of property on Clark street.
The bill alleges that they are the owners Of
lots abutting On that street in front Of the pro-
posed railway exceeding four hundred thousand
dollars in value; that II the said railwty COM
pauy is permitted to extend their railroad across
said bridge, and along said Clark street to Ran
dolph street, that the same will be Of great det-
ritnent to to the public; that complain ants will
be continually and permanently injured in the
use, benefit md enjoyment Of their said prop
erty, and they aud their tenants will be greatly
inconyepienced in the conducting of their nee
cssary affairs aud business, and be deprived Of
Of the use of said Clark street between Ran
dolph street and the river, or portion there
Of, by the passing nnd repassiug Of cars upon
such rairoud track, and by the great and ad-
ditioual hindrauce aud embarrassment which
will be occasioned to the passing of
teams, carts, wagons, carriages, and other yehi-
cles, in and along Clark street, by which said
street, already 50 crowded and thronged as
aforesaid, will be rendered often times impassa-
ble 1t is also alleged that the bridge over the
river isa draw bridge, and that By reason Of the
passing and repassing Of vessels ayigating said
river The said bridge is required to be frequent
y opened during the { 4, and that il the sud
barrassment aud injury thereby occasioned will
result in increased detriment to and permanent
injury Of tile compliments.
These allegations stand admitted upon the
record, and though il is not alleged in terms that
tue proposed road would amount to public
nuisance, ret such allegation is not indispensa.
bic il the staenlents OF facts raise q conclusive
| presumption Of nuisance.
In the decision it is only assumed from the
case made By the bill, that the proposed road
would be u nuisance, and it is otherwise left to
| be decided By evidence as question Of fact.