New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-11
AN IMpoRrANr CASE ON APPEAL.

The General Term Of the Superior Court
April s. $780, rendered decision, the late ohiefJudg.
Curtis writing the opinion In the suit OF Salvatore Cam
against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway COMPANY "a
restrain t from running trains IN front Of dxerr
house in Fifty thrdst and to DAMAGES vhGsL
the righs to the relief asked in the bill affirmed
Roger APryOr and Benjamin F.Buter. counssi tor NJ
Caro- grounded their entirely upoa q
novel and Qf sustained by tho Courts,
very important application OF an old and
well established principle OF law 10 state Of facts %
which 1t had before been extended IL settled
doctrine OF law that corporation cannot lie prop
erty or exercise Its rights and franchises pro-
duce damages arising from physical agencies 10 TIE
property Of others without making compensation "a
them for tho injury sustained. Mr.. Car0's counsel
claimed In the argument that the smoke, eoaldus Gin
ders aud noxious gases projected the PLAINTIFF Land
from the companys locomotive engines, NOT only rem
dered less valuable In point OF fact but also that tina
injury caused By them was one arising frsm actual
physical agencies. Mr. Caro-. It was admitted, could
not recover for Q depreciation IN the value
Of his property caused by tho construction and opfatn
OF the road but on tho other hand was urged that De
corporation could have authority TO cause foreign
substances 70 be thrown on the plaintiffs land. and
would be liable In damages n it did 10.
Owing TO the novelty and importance OF the LEGAL
points involved IN the case it stipulated between
Messrs. Porter, LoWrey. Soren q Stone, the COMES
for the company, and MI. Pryor, that the pieaaian
should be 80 drawn raise clearly the issues OF Law
without regard to matters of fact Mr. Pryor In accord
ance with this stipulation, changed hts complaint 20
that the company might safely demur to IL. Tha vas
done with view TO the being carried to the Court
of Appeals on the questions Of law. Tue company putt
demurrer to the complaint and judgment was eatsred
on consent Diminishing the COMPLAINT An appeal was
taken to tho General Term and decision rendered q
above mentioned reversing tue Judgment OF the oer
below. An order In accordance with the decision sss
up soon after the rendering OF the dec
ion by the General Term but has sniy just been sed
and lied. As the case stands IL Will 90 TO ne
Court OF Appeals solely on the questions OF aw ana
the Judgment Of the General Term afhrmed tho rgnt
10 damages Of the propertyowpers along the line Of ne
road VIII be- established. This 10 in accordanes
with the stipulation Of the opposing courses,
Mr. Pryor having changed his complaint %
the underst aAding that the company should WAIVE
their rgnt over, but should be bound by se
decision Of the Court OF Appeals the demurrer nR
stated that the order ersinE the
e of the Special Term not entered before was ina
Messrs Porter Lowrey 50nen q stone claimed they nea
waived taoir right % answer eye ana thai eat %
sapprebenson Of che counsel Of the terms OF tnen
stipulation grew q long aud etubborniy contested nSAs
the settlement OF the Order WHOM was ohy
few daya