The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-05-16

individual interest Of the citizen in highways and other
~ os fso 70 s s pe op by final IN
junction upsn BILL answer aad proofs, where the case rs
await trial at law in either the civil or criminal tdbu'
But necessity for trial at law to determine
he Of d1bc SSh%Sy sueh an Of
public street. is nuisance per &C. and may justly be re-
special general because it is attack upsn that in
which sys dane nSs s nnd Sast Ss
community At large sue Sustained IN Fdsn on chan
H. 9S9 story Equity, % sec ss Je'emys I yb;. EdS Sd
tne are the cases Of Attorney vs. Rs6ards
AnsTuther, 6c3; same JohnsOn, Wilson, O. X, 81;
the ohsf Baron delivering the opinion in An;truther
wharf erected between high and low water marks # is
the Court can s n tine
Court give such decree at least not without
Is Of Nuisance and the evidences doubtful Lord
S Re Rt to Il W
be granted.
% n sSe hd so s t%9 RRd
& op @d
ton to HTden street 9p me- OF eeie ss rs RSo MS
are and O. fronting Broad
The irstnamsd bili complains that the company de
fenSSDt are remGyns the IS from % & he stTes s
obsrqcting the highway with its materials aud were
Rs bill alleges rail-
way consTueted will be nuisance in public highway
obstructnS the roadway and imParng the beauty Q!
H'S VIII be IN Violation o the fsitR Of state and
pha as expressed in the act Assembly March %,
1866 In each bill asked to restrain by injunction
though the equities upon which the prayers rest diff
erent the material facts and statements OF both bills
But our right interfere by injunction has been ques
toned on the ground that special luJuy has been
shown to have been sustained likely to fall upon the
the breach IS doubtful After the repeated instances in
which this Court has nerfered IN cases Of tnls kind at
cred as at rest witt us even though tneFe Is no
but Where the wrong is done to the citizens Of munc
But was held in Com q. p Railway, p F. s.. 5l7,
oRnS Of e hG Sy R R NO Of
at Of h e fs 2Ua tns bn
the immediate property OF the corporations and standing
the municipality does in the relation Of trustees for
are with the duty Of guarding the corporate rights OF all
they exercise control supervisors of the highway which
makes it obeatGTE them @ to see tnaf the are are
sTucton and this obligation carries with the responsi
BY reason Of neglect or improper OF thif
members of Councils indictment aud punishment We
have the authority of the Supreme Court for the assertion
of the streets and as it will not be Questioned that
nection with the and proper management of them
abI to be- made do on one OF e hwy the cy that
defend the public interests the courts of the Com
The injury is to them sufficiently certain and specific to
endoe d R em % 70 tb of M bnhast m noer wbeny
Parsons 40 the injury to the ity may quite
afo admitted to be compotont parties ask
relief in equity sg9ns the npisan citing in support Of
properly held that from the express powers granted to
cy Of up
Such an implication seems to be neoessaiy hat It may
be DIV with TO s Gs
sents 10 deny this right would in many cases stfip
may be esOiivo that So ii prompt ana even
sst P nd Mayors o B
Vesey yr 59, Trustees. etc. VS. ". Oowen, Paige 5O
Rep KS In the case last cited we hed that the Bor
b II fo was & TO nnd
he %Snh Of EraRk0TS ] crssG into the tide
the Of Com Long Parsons the principle
K,nF Upon the question Of the sSt o. JSS pro-
ef BY It viii be necessary to say few words
only Though they are private individuals complaining
Bill on this ground. T6e creation Of public nuisance
injury Which % they assert that the the B1d
h OF e U HS be as Of tn 6 %
% vs. the Navy Yard B. and F Rsiiwsy i i
d to rSsTsn S the
on the ground that special injury was set up as
threatened to the complainant which certainly
case Of Faust vs. Passen ger RSilway Company Phil Si
against point Strong j. ssys the
1 % byw 5he Ut ana @
apubc one may be restrained by injunction at the suit
private person VINO may suffer special injury
|
ven. thTeatened nuisance the right Of the complainant
ought be established at law admitted before an in
a T Fl But the S
great and the danger imminent er the act complained
unctoD viii be- granted even though there BE- poss6ty
that the anticipated private injuIS may result from
ssted Judge Cites &ohs%R Gomp
Rowe o. ys Granite sisad g. pSkPns 81 FaS
Of the proposed railway is unauhOrzsd by law and is
views OF Judge Strong, following those whc9 hava
posed tracks in front of the property of complanaut
convenient for approach by carriages and less Lae
S1StnS sa an Of e' p%b OF to s
sufficient TO enttle them to the preventive nterp asoa
founded upon both ero1nds of an illegal Obstruction Of
| the street and of specisl wrong to plaintiffs.
arising Of common injury, which presses more upon
particular ndiSidnas R than upon Others not 50 mme
Of Court OF Egqg for the M Of
edition. Authorities support of this position cited
by Judge King in Longs quoted ABOVE from Par
plaintiffs not having been denied by tne defendant, it
must stand for az purposes connected with this 19a-
| legal incidents which follow such admission.
the defendant under grant from the LEGISLATURE,
tend their double track north to Spring Gard en- street
doubt or il cannot be conoeded Adopting the
language Of the Supreme Court as expressed Sy qhie me
way Casey 357 we hold THAT in such case ingenuity
mas certain privileges show the record OF the Legsa
ture comforting them Failing in this, you must give up
doubtful charter does not exist because whatever is
doubtful is deesyey against h tine S0TRo5qon N antr
r., p F. smith, 5l6, in which tho OoHt say in looking
mindful Of the fact that the defendants are private
pOraon claiming franchises against public rights ney
claim If their charter leaves their right doubtful the
There can be no question as 70 the Application OF tne
principle upon the general doctrine o. tTct constrnc