New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-07-08

moded or reduced in value might recover bis
loss, the companies could not bear the burden,
unless a converse rule were established, ana
they were allowed to recover from owners
whose lands should be improved in value the
amount of the latter's gain. If downtown
buildings incommoded by the general results
of new railroad may claim damages, up
town vacant lots brought into market by the
new roads ought to pay for the benefit. ms
theory opens up vista of claims, lawsuits,
assessments and verdicts at which even law
yers shuddcr; all lower New-York suing the
roads for their shadow and rattle, and the
roads suing all the uptown owners for a
share in the improved prices of real estate !!
The old-fashioned view has been that rail-
roads must be opened when and where the
Legislature sees fit. They will raise the value
of some land lower that of others. This is
one of the general risks of property.
The law of nuisance is often invoked in
these cases. Smoke, dust, cinders. noise and
jar, may well be deemed a nuisance. No
doubt railroad may be so managed as to
expose its prOprietors to injunction or dam
ages on this ground. Even chime of church
bells may become nuisance if rung Excess
sively or uDreasonably. Most NEWCOMERS
will remember that foOt-bridge across Broad
way at FultOn-st. was ordered to be torn
down for darkening the windows of the hat
ters store underneath. But the general view
has been that a duly chartered road, running
upon route authorized by law, is not nui-
sance unless by reason of the faulty way In
which 1t is built or managed. Abuses OF
management may be corrected under the law
of nuisance but if the management is as skill
full prudent, and consideTate as the demands
of the traffic admit, that law gives no relief.
Should it be shown that directors ground
lessly neglect or refuse to examine and adopt
new and approved cOntrivances for diminish
ing noise and jar, this would be negligence
which well might warrant claims for damages.
A company is in duty bound to keep Its
road equipped according to the general pro-
gress in machinery and methods. 1t has not,
however, been a general complaint that the
Elevated roads are not as well built and as
carefully managed as the nature OF their
novel methods admits. If careful and prudent
construction and management are conceded,
the general tenor of past decisions is that the
company is in the exercise of its lawful rights
equally with the landowner, and neither can
complain of the other.
Every one understands that building torn
down to make way for a railroad, or a spot
of land needed for station, must be paid
for. The courts have not extended this prln-
cpe in favor of lands which only suffer from
"a road because they lie near it. If nothing
is taken by the company for its uses, nothing
need be paid for, as this rule has been I'M
derstOOd. There is some reason for extending
its application beyond the line of past views,
to the novel conditions attending the cree
ton of elevated roads in crowded city streets.
Perhaps there is an element i'll taking away
light and air from a neighbours building and
in filling bis apartments with sound waves,
and perhaps smoke and noxiOus vapors, which
the courts will some day lay hold of as
amounting to a taking or occupancy of his
property. Because they have not done so
heretofore, it does not follow that they never
will