Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1873-02-27
THE GAS CASE.

Decree OF Special Chancellor Fin
ME of the First Chancery Court.
The Memphis Gas Light Company VS.. tn,
Memphis GayosO Gas Company.
Last Monday special Chancellor Johr
G. Finnie delivered an elaborate decree
in the above case. The points decided
are as follows After citing a large
number of authorities, and dwelling al
length on the proof in the cause, the
Chancellor concluded with the following
propositions which he regarded as being
fully established
First-That it is impossible for com
plainant and defendant to occupy the
same streets with their respective gas
mains located upon the same plane.
Secondhand it is impossible for de
PENDANT to locate its mains and pipes in
the same streets above complainant s
mains and pipes without great damage
to complainant
Third-That it is impracticable foT
complainant and defendant to occupy
the same streets with their mains ano
pipes with equal facilities for supplying
gas to consumers, and that attempting
to do so is an injury TO both, but the
greater injury to the company occupying
the lower plane.
The proof further strongly tends tC
establish the following propositions;
First-That defendants invasions,
with its gas mains and pipes, of street
occupied by complainant necessarily
does injury and mischief to the latter.
To place them at any distance below
complainant does the latter injury; to
place them above does still greater in
jury, and to place them at the same
depth is wholly impossible.
Second-That complainant cannot
yield equal privilege of occupancy of a
street to defendant, nor similar priv
leges subordinate to complainant S
choice of location on the street, without
impairing its own rights, embarrassing
itself in making changes of location,
which may become necessary, and do
ing injury to its own mains and pipes.
In view of the above propositions the
Court held that complainant has been
damaged and injured by defendant, but
inasmuch as compliments rights to a
perpetual injunction of the further man
ufacture and sale Of gas by defendant is
not shown by ample and satisfactory
proof, the Court declines to grant such
injunction now.
1t is ordered that complainant may
bring an action at law against defendant
for all damages which it has suffered.
This case will be retained to await a
verdict and judgment in such action at
law, and if in such action the complain
ant shall recover, perpetual injunction
will then be granted in the meantime,
the preliminary injunction heretofore
granted against defendant laying pipes
above those Of complainant will be con-
tinued.
1t is ordered that until the decision Of
such action at law, or until reasonable
time has elapsed for the commencement
and prosecution thereof to final judg-
ment, the defendant is prohibited from
laying any further gas mains or pipes in
the streets which it does not now occupy
unless the defendant first gives bond in
the sum Of 100000 for all such damages
as the complainant has suffered or may
suffer from the same.
Each party is left at liberty to here
after apply to this Court for other or
further relief, as the equity Of their cause
may demand, not inconsistent with the
of this decree.