The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-06-02
.TnE BRoAD-sTaEET QUESTION,
RESULT OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN
INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE RUN.
Ming. OF LOCOMOTIVES ON
BRoAD STREET.
Tho Appeal Case In the Circuit Court.

BRoAD STREET.
Tho Appeal Case I'm the Circuit Court.
In the Chancery Court of this city yester-
day morning Judge Fitzhugh gave bis opin.
ion In the ease of Henry Miller and others
Us. the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Po.
tomac Railroad Company, being an applica-
tion for an injunction to restrain the said
company from using upon its road on Broad
street engines Of any kind propelled by
steam. The plaintiffs represented themselves
to be citizens of Richmond and property.
owners on Broad street, or persons doing
business on that street, or persons using aud
Ifrequenting it on business or otherwise i
The Judge after very ably and carefully
stating the case made by the pleadings
in this cause, said: "The proceedings
ut law, instituted By the City of Rich
mond against the company, and the
suit by the plaintiffs against the same de-
fendant, have reference 10 the same general
result namely, 10 prevent the running of
steam engines on Broad street by the COM
pany.
"The first question that should be consid-
cred is, whether pending the appeal in the
Circuit Court in the suit at law between the
city and the company such case has been
made by the plaintiffs in this cause as to JUS
tfy this court in interfering?
"The jurisdiction OF courts Of equity over
nuisance Is in aid Of the legal right, and has
been assumed for the purpose of preserving
and protecting property from irreparable, or
ut least, from substantial or material damage
pending the trial Of the right.-kerr on in
functions, 332, section l. This jurisdiction
does not arise from the fact that nuisance
exists, but results from the circumstance
that the equitable power Of the court is
necessary to protect the party from an in
jury for which no adequate redress can be
obtained by an action at law. The rule laid
down by Lord Brougham in Earl Of Ripon
Us. Hobart, 3 Mylne, and Kein, 169, is this !:
sIf the thing sought to be prohibited is in
itself a nuisance, the court will interfere to
stay irreparabe mischief without waiting for
the result of trial; and will, according to
the circumstances, direct an issue, OIL allow
an action, and if need be expedite the pro-
. ceedings, the Injunction being in the mean
tine continued. But where the thing sought
to be restrained is not unavoidably and in
itself noxious, but only something which
may according to circumstances prove so,
then the court will refuse to interfere until
the matter has been tried at law'-See also
Story, Eq., section 924, note /. But this
jurisdiction is only applied where the right
is clearly established, where no adequate
compensation can be made in damages, and
where delay itself would be wrong. The
case must be one of strong and imperlous
necessity, or the right must have been pre-
yiously established at law. II the evidence
! be conflicting and the injury doubtful, this
) extraordinary remedy will be withheld
Parker Uersus Winnipiseogee Lake and Cot
ton Co., Black, 552, and authorities cited
Kerr on iniunctions, 200, section 20.
"Under these general principles the plain
tiff in this cause were prosecuting the suit
at law in the Circuit Court; in other words,
if the plaintiffs in both cases were the same,
l ana Of opinion that it would be my duty
J not TO interfere until the case at law was de.
termiued; for the railroad company disputes
the legal right and denies that there is
, nuisance. The company has been in the un-
interrupted use of the street for upwards Of
thirty years, and claims to be using it now
. . only as it has used it in the past. do not
see that there is such a-strong and imperious
: necessity of immediate action by this court,
or that there is such imminent danger of
irreparable mischief before the tardineSs Of
the law can reach it, US would justify the
court in now awarding an Injunction. But
the popularity Of this case IS that the plain
, tifs in the two cases are different. The city
of Richmond is proceeding at law, and the
,, plaintiffs in this case, private citizens, are
proceeding in equity. l do not think, how
ever, that this popularity affects the applica-
ton of the principle to this case. The mu.
nicipal corporation of the city of Richmond
represents all the citizens Of the place-the
plaintiffs in this case as we'll as others. It is
, ltigatipg in the proper forum the main ques-
!, tions involved in this case-nsmely, the ques.
tions of the existence of nuisance and
of the legal right of the company to
use locomotives in the street. If the
city succeeds in maintaining the va.
lidity of this ordinance referred to the
Judgment in its favor will enure to the beue.
tit Of the plaintiffs in this case as much as to
. any other citizens Of the place. II, on the
3 other hand, the city cannot show that there
/ is a nuisance, or successfully impeach the
t legal right of the company to use loeomo-
8 tives on the street, it is difficult to see how
these plaintiffs can be more successful, unless
: they can show rights ia themselves different
$ from and independent of those OF the city
e Bv continuing the motion for the injunction
fnlI opportunity can be given to the plaintiff
" 10 De QedCU Ou duy suSh 4oSoe'oh' ~ -N-
Z that decision in the case of the city asalns'
E the company may disprove of every question
!. in both suits, and thus the whole matter may
e be determined BY one case and by the proper
: forum. -,
: II am therefore of opinion thatthe motor
for an Injunction stand over until the queStloL
; of right is settled in the case in the Cifcul
!. Court"
!. Tn the Circuit Court yesterday the counse
: for the city and for the Richmond, Frede
!. ricksburg and Potomac Railroad Company
submitted to the Judge, without oral argu
ment, the appeal case. from the Hollce jus
: tice's Court. The Police Justice, under th'
e ordinance prohibiting the running OF loco
: motives on Broad street, imposed on thl
: company for violation of the same hne o.
, $500, and from this judgment the rallroat
com pany took an appeal to the Circuit Court
VERDICT IN AN IMPORTANT INSURANCE CASE
= The case Of DR.. c. E. Kloeber rs. The Yir
ginia Fire aud Marine Insurance Company
. has been decided in The Circuit Court by tht
I ipry bringing in verdict for the amoun
: claimed by the plaintiff, $4,000 The plain
q tif's property was situated near Pittsylyanil
Courthouse, and was destroyed on the 5tt
e of November, 1872. 1t was insured fol
j 90 O0O in 'noch' the Virginia Fire and Marine