Wilmington daily commercial., 1872-02-22
THE COURTS.
The Question of Railroad Slide
Tracks.
The Jackson & sharp Co., va. The p. w. g.
u. RRilrOnd Co.

ing IN the Court OF Ohancery was decided to-day,
the opinion being delivered by Chancellor Bates,
at New Castle.
The facts, necessary to an understanding of
the case, are that, about the year 1868, Messrs.
Jackson & Sharp erected their car works adjacent
to the Railroad track in this city "a short distsnce
above the crossing at Seventh street. About
the time of the erection of the works or soon
after but precisely when was not proved one OF
the firm, Mr.. jackson, applied to the officers OF
tine Railroad Go. to connect the car works with
the Railroad by means OF side track, for the
convenience of delivering freight and manufac-
tured cars. The officers promised to make the
desired connection, which after some two or
three months delay was done deliveries between
the Railroad and the car works being meanwhile
made by temporary expedients side track had
been previously laid on the Easterly side of the
Railroad below Seventh street, for the purpose
Of connecting the road with other works located
below that street. This side track was extended
by the Railroad Company above Seventh
street Northwardy as far as the Car Works
of Jackson Sharp, and there connected
with the works by curved tracks extending
from the side track into one Of the shops.
Afterwards in the year 1868, upon the
erection of paint shop by Jackson Sharp, a
similar connection was, on their application,
formed with the paint shop. These arrange
monts were completed by the employees OF the
Railroad Company and the expense apportioned
track laid upon their respective lands. The side
track and curves after their completion con-
tinued to be used by jackson Sharp and their
successors in business, the jackson h Sharp Co.,
without interruption or omplaint until the year
1870, when controversy arose between the par
ties as to which was responsible for claim made
by one Patterson, workman of the Jackson d
Sharp Co., for damage sustained by him from
the backing Of some cars OF the Railroad Com
pany against an old car, which he at the time
dlBmantling, on this side track Patterson sued
the Railroad Company for the damage and re-
covered Judgment, which that Company in
sisted that the Jackson X Sharp Co., ought to
pay. The latter Company refusing, the Railroad
company we're about to take up the side track,
when the jackson 4 Sharp Co., filed bill in
Chancery and obtained an Injunction to restrain
the removal of the side track until the rights Of
the parties should be adjudged. Messrs. Har-
rington and T. F. Bayard were counsel for the
Jackson Il Sharp Company Messrs Gordon
and Smithers for the Railroad Company The
case was elaboratey argued in October and held
under advisemnt until this day, when the Cham
cellor decided adversely to the complainants.
We give brief summary of the decision:
DECISION OF THE CHANCELLOR
The Chancellor held that the right claimed for
the complainants amounted to an easement or
interest on the land of the Railroad Company.
The claim was to the perpetual use of the side
| track as right appurtenant to the car works,
| passing under conveyance of them and binding
| the land of the X. II. Company, into whose ever
| hands it might come. This was such an inter
est in the land as could be created only by deed,
| or by a contract in writing pursuant to the
| Statute OF Frauds. which requires contracts for
| aAy interest in or concerning lands to be in
| writing. In the present case there was no con-
| tract either written or verbal, securing to jack
| son 4 Sharp and their assigns the perpetual use
| of this side track, or in any degree restricting
| the right of the r. II. Company, as the owners
of the soil, to take it up at their pleasure. The
| court considered that the transactions between
these parties amounted only to a parol license
| for the use of the side track, enuring a per-
sonal privilege to jackson Sharp, passing no
interest in the land, and revocable at the will Of
| the r. II. Company. That such is the whole
effect Of license to do certain acts which con-
cern the use of land is point which has passed
| beyond discussion.
Ii was strongly argued for the complainants
that although generally license is revocable
at the will OF the licensor yet that in this case
Jackson 4 Sharp having madelarge expenditures
in erecting and afterwards enlarging their car
works, upon the faith of their enjoying the con-
tinued use of the side track for their works, q
court OF Equity would hold the R. r. Company
estopped from revoking the license but the
| court held that the Company could not be es-
topped, even in Equity, from exercising theiI
legal right as the owner Of the soil to remove the
track, unless it should appear that their officers
had by some promise, assurance or conduct mis-
led Jackson 4 Sharp into the belief that the
| arrangement was to be perpetually binding or
the Company, and had thereby induced them tt
expend their money, 30 that the revocation OF
the license would operate as fraud. But there
did not appear to have been in the communities
tions had between the officers OF the Company
and Jackson 4 Sharp, in the acts OF the officers
ANYTHING TO Justify jackson Sharp in assuming
, that the Company by granting the accommoda
/ | ton applied for meant to relmqulsh any right
property in the soil II is agreed that no stlpu
, iation or promise to that effect was expressed
a | Nor were jackson Sharp warranted to infe
! the concession Of perpetual easement IN tn'
! | land OF the Company merely because on their ap
plication side track laid; for the bare fact
| the LAYING of the side track is as consistent wit
= | an arrangemement resting for its continuance
/ upon the will Of the parties as with one perpet
a | ually binding. The only color for an inferenc
| that the laying of the track WAS intended to con
a fer a perpetual right to the use of it, spring
: | from the great value Of such right to the owl
/ ership OF the car works. Bat opposed to this
i a consideration Of equal force, which is the il
d terest OF the r. r. Company to preserve unin
a paired it's proprietary control over its road be
and tracks in addition to which also ia its obi
Ia CATION as a public corporation to keep its roa
"a | unincumbered by private rights, or easement
n | which might under any circumstances embarrai
10 it's use as a public highway OF travel SO tn
the relative interests of the parties in the
tanning or withholding Of perpetual easeme
in the side track affords no legitimate lnferen
as to whether or not the track was laid with u
d. intention to confer such an easement. NC
" again. was there any usage connected with q
granting of this sort Of accommodation by IL
a Il. r.. Company to warrant Jackson \ Sharp
o. inferring that the side track was laid with su'
an understanding.
y ON the contrary, as it appears in evidence,
is the general understanding in such cases th
a | the continuance OF these accommodations is W
untary on both sides, leaving to the compal
va the absolute control over its own track, with t
ts | like control in the owner of the connected wor
over the track laid upon his land unless the
ne be some agreement to the contrary.
he Looking at all the circumstances OF this case {
only construction to be given to the trsnsactio
fe, between the parties is that although the conn
od tion of the car works with the railroad v
p doubtless contemplated as one that would be
fact permanent, yet that no stipulation to Il
effect was asked or given, or supposed to
given; but that the arrangement was tacitly /
to rest agreeably to the general understand
yes with respect to such accommodations, upon
'ge mutual good will and interest Of the parties
led jackson Il Sharp being content to accept that
to A sufficient guaranty for the permanence OF
connection, without attempting to secure it a
hia legal right according to the prescribed forms
ms law. The result has disappointed their expee
Ma tons and involved them in no little hardship
but hardship is not ground for equitable rel
- except in favor Of party who, without any n
eo' ligence in securing his rights in the appropri
legal modes, has been misled to his prejudice
some fraud or laches of the party against Wh
the relief is sought or by such conduct OF
. | latter as renders it an act OF bad faith IN hin
10 of ha pniataLa