, 1876-12-19

opinion ~ Judge Ditkey, wien Corporation
s. wt III t Wcs III yss .S e;r1t Cay et wa. sn
Invalid. Counsel thought tho Metropolitan
Railway CatHpanY vas entitled tn besirwetl With
favorable eyo III its application 10 condemn, m
II tfhs acting ltl compliance wtll law, md WIS
wtTt],.
Mr.. Tuey followed IN the rlosnx argument
1nr m the ,hietropolltan City Hallway Company.
10 said Tho eHse clttie M I'm n0tf0f to tlsas
pirate cxlstencu n u.er or It's IA,wcrt, anl tlle
ordinance of tho city giving Il nuxnr to ,,se
Lake nnl Canal atreuts. It was oljeytcd that
the ordinance was l,yallt, hctatlae tctt tiays,
streets lad not Gcst! Tlye,, hut I'LL objcction
should llayo bccn tnken before tic ordinance
wis introduced it evidence Anvthor objection
was that 10 butll Ind hucn fled, hut no unc c1-
cept ts1s si.Y eoal! takc advantage NJ such oiis-
sltIt. Sufficient Ind been shown under the
Horse aiNl Dummy act to enItln the Company
70 % on umter tic Ennett-l)onnn law. null
the necessity NJ the taking WA t he decided by
tho corporation which, desired t0 cDntlelnn the
property Tho intent Of tho law, ,sas to allow
eorlorntfon to 20 Into court md acc how muclI
II will c0bt llcfu10 It Is compelled to taku My
propcrty Tho Supreme Court IN tlle North
stnto atrcot condemnation cosu had made MI en-
tirs'y Analogous tlet,siou, !otllnE that tho ci.y
Wlleti scck[nE to t0ndtlnn.
Tho next question was what exclusion meant.
Tllo amendment q 1a5l TO thc ortHhnl Mt III l55o
Was otly steal oi lcast i9f years
nntler such ninentln,olt In similar cases II had
lcetl lseta ttlat to Lc4alatnrc !1a' ny power To-
make eontraet for etty. TIN Legislature laL
previously authorized tho, city ol Chicago to
ns II deemed prnpcr. Hut such contracts must
he reasonable. By tho 1r4t contract Ut 1861 thu
city n:qu'rcd M tletiuatc right IN tile coinrnny's
psonefty 20 @ sake sMcct NJ tnc e,! u twehty.i!sg
5ch.ssai!u taL mot pe o.terca
~ ts fgsn{5e na 5 a wtot 1o S 81 s
yislo''s ~ ths exeluslon q esrian stsests, M
M Gsc s1ases1 ta lo 1ncr e kS ta @aef
aw Imw ~ iS'o ts9 NJ a1ao a 1 c"Gf @ ',o .c Mon9F! ~
fcaaru 10 IT, e!.nsteis o.. e;t,es towns. Or w.
lnsts, antl TIC principle wis the sa',e rs IN tho
p'tyvsIns tvi,at sasG ssis .,.. ~, A., ,,.,..,..
What klne! .! ~ 'nteseh1 ~ ti,c Asae1suants @
eonact S md ~a al s' cnc a a M o Il tcr o enrtsr mas
bnt there was no consideration 1or si!el' co-
tTast U.lartcte wcfe 3 tu ~ eonhtracla nEa!tst II
,ns,,' tme n'suaiulaso1s. ime e'sy useM utuef 10
ra n3a1v m no y ga otf, au .
rospanleess if1 esstatI ,1, strsets. n una a'f IT,
BE- or sxc,nptn aiess tcrs was f9na H., further
ssiaefa1'o,' ,!o%hE to tl!s Sty II Was SIMPLY
# lie sssssst + in;;sSss 'epsasa afi ts
Horsc r, @ a,l!i Dummy Railroad aet: ,,,,
n. ut. ftntl wlshel 70 gay e., aatt1oila! woni.
~ lug onnsanses OF tne elty u Would Ha fech
Lnat Inc alahen1ees m Inc s1feo1s oi Chieasn
Mers several lneS wera re, not not. 70 oc construed
tngctlIer as one grant, blt inast bc construed as
several ana M,s separasc grantta, ,
trt1 nmgs " .he i2ta9TSn % IT, cios
% 'x ~ n"cut ~. iol ts, sne .i 1ialMa}
:G;,n'pnny. Aitef reviewing t!o iasts, ne sad '
u 1mS osSHios re-. m mc.sf .rt te
tAGtluPui!Itn to'"Fhu3 NUS c!btHetA HttH tho
pn%'er p''e e., q eGe'1ati1,,' s nl1a ses9 whether
% mnaGr tIfo law Of tne 1a Staae tn.s pattiSular
spcSc5 o. property, franchises was subject to
goaueonato Magr the general law
W W te otEnzat1om srovo, oi Goam!'ss
eoMa condemn n,rt 1a; no NJ Garty sGu ,a
Gull oli GoITt 10 coltchn lanu uiitil IT. !lau
power gnu r16l't 70 chter om inc lalla wlcli Grf:
ennea thas raIt, 1ne hofso anu onminy aes pyaed
tnnt !I,a, ny runway company s!,oulu use stfee.
~1tltoat 9bsaslnE colseilt ot thu city. It Woull
zee oc 905fa hoarG 70 a'ow y coy 70 ~ soac'n %
tesisiat'sFe asl ttot 1htc1la py INC hrst part 81
LUZ nrst see.ion o. tl'o aet y glyo ti,e rtSht to
entgr atreet auEn!utely. Il bh!y relatcHto ttle