Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1871-11-21
Railroad Injunction Case---Eisc En-
iuNStiOn Dissolved


Keith, this morning. dissolved the injunction
granted by Judge Cockeric of the County
Court, to prevent the further prosecution OF
work on the Alexandria and Washington Turn.
pike The following is the opinion Of the Court:
Alexandria Turnpike Company CT ais vs.. II.
| W. Freddy. This cause which il now in this
court upon an appeal from an order entered by
the County Court Of Alexandria county.was i'll
sttutcd in that court by the appellee ii. W.
FrccdIev. who filed his bill on behalf Of himself
and all others whose lands being contiguous to
the Alexandria Turnpike nj ght come III aud
| ioin in the expenses and costs OF the
suit" averring that the Washington and Alex
andria Turnpike Company, the Alexandria and
Fredericksburg Railroad Company, and the
Washington and Richmond Railway Company,
were in the act OF tearing up the road bed OF
the Turnpike Company, with tile view OF coli
structing railway thereon and that III so do
ing the said companies were acting IN VIOLATION
Of their respective charters, We're committing
q public and private nuisance, and lntIcting
upon him, the said Frecdiey, irrcl'arabIc danl-
age. He then prays that these companies
may be made defendants and restrained from
the further prosecution OF their work. I'm III
innction accordingly issued on the l7;h day ct
| /,
execution of the requisite bond until the 18TH
of the same month. On the 10Th Of August
the defendants having given notice 6i their IN
tention moved the Judge Of the court to dissolve
the Injunction upon the BILL demurrer thereto,
the answers Of the defendants and sundry aft
duyits. This motion was ovcrru!cd, and I'll or
der to that effect was entered on the 9TH ct
Scptembcr ana from that order an appeal WAS
taken to this court.
The first question presented by the record is
upon the demurrer to the bill, which does not
appear to have been noticed in the court below.
The ground relied upon in support OF the de-
murrcr is that the bill is muIttarinus. It 50.
it must be either on account OF ml$ioindcr OF
parties as plaintiffs, or defendants, or because
of the ioindcr Of matters in themselves separate
and distinct The BILL it is true. is filed Oil be-
half Of Frecdlcy and others similarly situated;
who my come in and be made parties. and
numerous petitioners, as appears from the re-
cord, do ask to be made parties plaintiff. but 1t
does not appear that their prayer WAS ever
granted Had they been joined rs plaintiffs, |
think, upon The authority Of Hanson vs. Mad
Olson, y Simons, 4I6, that it would have ren-
dered the bill multifariOuS. In that case five
sercrul occupcrs of house filed bill to re-
strain the erection Of steam engine, which
" h' ho mnlt;G,r;nn. Er o,ch Ind Srp,ratc and
distinct right So here the parties have stint
lar interests involved. but their rights arr sciE'
rate ana distinct; TO have jolut,l them aS palm
titfs would have been an error fatal upon de
murrcr, and for this reason it is to lac pre*nM-
: eli the PRAYER Of their petitions Was not al
lowed / cannot think. however. that the mere
recital in the bill that it is filed on behalf Of
Freedley and Others who may come in and be
made parties" when in fact no additional par.
ties are made can be considered i nl<lnIndcr Of
plniutiffs AS to the mi>jonier Vt defendants,
while the bill does not charge in Il formal nlan-
ner confederation between them. the aIlcga
tons of the bill do in effect amount to snch
charge: if 50 then they were properly joined
and thc objection Of mutifariousness could not
bc raised unnn demurrer, which lies Only to
oL;ections apparent upon the face of the bill.
Nor do | think there is any mi:joindcr Of dis
tiuct matters. There NAY be much in the bill
not pcr,jncnt to the relief sought but the only
: matter to be adiudicated is whether or not the
anncl|onts we're uuIty Of creating 4 nuisance in
tenr;nu nm theroad bed Of the Washington and
| Ainv,nJr;, Tnrnnikc romnanr and nreparinr
70 construct = railway upon the same, and if 50
enssgnj were thrv nctnr in violation Of their
reSnective charters and nhctng irreparahIe
DAMAGE unou thc appellcc. I am Of opinion
that the demurrer should have been nverrucd,
and this was doubtless the opinion OF the
County Court, and the omission to do so merely
accidental
Tho hill IN th;. ,so ayers ,i,ot tLc defendants
n v in te,rnr IN thr road bed Of the
t r,r , nta thcrcbv destrovne it for turnpike
,nnv onJ w;th tho Wow If coustrurtnc
Pun ;ts ; n,u ra;lwav track Thc net herr,
of * cbargcd as nubic and private
cOlnpidlilcu W i" 0u S@u o." ~ pu'''' CIV! =. ~,
nus.lue, "''a n 30 5omano ;rrepar,hn dam.
aerIoS sur.'' orJ e 60 II Is a. ninv far which
age ne arGI nn,its s5 70 u, re ON the r
me m Is fch' thaf r r.I should be- sght is to be
a n ""G" aI' + ;s General nrnrrc thnt
49, 1911" of It,, has no iIyisdict;on where
CouLt VI III";y n o", - atrnr1 fiji ami
Court u lay M % 'Jn H. ~ ~ tbo Itr r.
auequa.e le''.i t W. AL AIovanJr;, CANAL Gom.
ueorsetoT pn w. S GIS tho Tnnrt savs that -,
p ,II, - n,,;.ouno ham, tho suhrct If cr;mnnl
pupo tLo ordHs,rv and rconlor nroceeI