The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-02-19

IMPORTANT DECISION.
RIGHT OF CITIES TO REMOVE BUILDINGS
.~ ENCROACIIING UPON STREETS.

The Supreme Court of Appeals yesterday
decided the case of the Manchester Cotton.
Mills Us. the Trustees of the Town of Man.
chester, on an appeal from the Circuit Court
of Chesterfield county. -.
In 1873 the Manchester Cotton-MlIs were
in possession of four brick buildings In the
town Of Manchester. The buildings had
been erected in 1849 or 1850, and had been
in the continuous, peaceable, and adversary
possession of the Manchester Cotton-Mills
and those under whom they claim ever since
their erection. In 1873 the town authorities
Of Manchester notified the Manchester Cot
ton-Mills that the buildings encroached upon
Summers street, in said town, and threatened
TO remove them in pursuance Of their char
ter and ordinances relating to the removal of
distractions from the public streets. The
Manchester Cotton.Mills applied for an in
junction against this threatened action,
setting forth in their bill their long posses
sion under bona tide claim of right, and
denying that there existed any right to use
the land on which the buildings stood as a
public street.
The town Of Manchester, in their answ er
to this bill, claimed that the persons under
whom the Manchester Cotton Mills claimed
had dedicated the pr cise ground on which
the buildings stood to the public for street,
apd had te-wardS, in the face Of this dedi-
cation, erected the buildings on the ground
they had thus dedicated, and that this dedi.
cation had been recognized by subsequent
deeds conveying the property to intermedi-
ate owners.
Tue Manchester Cotton.Mills, on the other
hand, deny that there was ever any such
dedication, and if there was, that there was
ever any valid acceptance on the part Of the
town. The evidence on the subject of dedi-
cation was OF an uncertain and conflicting
character. This being the case, the court
below dissolved the injunction which had
been granted the Manchester Cotton-Mills,
that court holding substantially that court
| Of equity had no jurisdiction to restrain a
| municipal corporation in the exercise Of It's
discretionary and police powers unless the
party invoking the interference of equity had
| established his legal rights in proper pro-
ceeding at law, or unless the case was such
that be could not recover at law'adequate
damages for the injury done him.
This decision was reversed by the Court
of Appeals, Judge Staples delivering the
opinion, concurrcd in by all the other judges.
Judge Staples very clearly intimated tnat this
case was one in which the party could not
nave recovered auellidle QauaSeS aC laW
| but he mainly rested his decision on broader
grounds-namely, that where party bas
| been in long, uninterrupted, and peaceable
| possession of land under claim OF right a
court of equity always has jurisdiction to in.
| terlere in his behalf to quiet the possession
and to preserve the property from injury
| until the party not N possession has
established his title at law; that this doc.
trine applies 10 individuals, aud with
still greater force to municipal corporations,
| when possess such large poWers-powers
which they are often inclined to use for the
| oppression Of the citizen. The court, there
fore, without passing upon the question oI
dedication (hoding that. that was question
proper to be submitted to jury, reversed
| the decree of the lower court, and directed
| that tue town Of Manchester should be en-
joined from interfering with the said build
ings until the town had established its title
to the land in controversy in proper pro
ceeding in court of law.
Messrs. McRae and Christian argued the
case before the Supreme Court for appellants
and Logan and Bransford for appellees.,