The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-10-25
The Right OF Property in Streets.

The important case of Story against the
New York Elevated Railroad company.
which has been before the courts for sew
eral years, was finally decided in favor of
the plaintiilby the supreme court of New
York last Tuesday. The plaintiff owning
property on Front street, brought suit
against the company to recover damages for
constructing line of railroad, supported
ON pillars, along the street in front of his
property. The lower court gave decision
against him on the ground that he posse ssed
no property or right in the street that had
been inlringed by the road. He appealed
TO the supreme court, where ii was argued
IN his behalf that, as mere owser,
no had q right to protect the street In front
OF MN from invasion, and that rs his prom.
erty had been taken from him without com.
pensation, and he had been damaged in
the impairment OF his light, air, ventilation
and access, he was entitled to DAMAGES,
ON the other side ii was argued that the
plaintill had no property in the bed Of the
street that the road had been constructed
under an authorization from the legislature,
and that there was no evidence that tho
plaintiffs property had been impaired in
value by It. The court held that Ithc
plaintiff has q right or privilege In Tho
street which entities him to have the same
Kept open and continued rs q public street
Tor tho benefit OF his AUDITING property.
that THIS right constitutes an easement In
the bed OF the street, which attaches To tho
abuttlng property and constitutes also nri.
vate property III the meaning of the consti
tuition, OF which the plaintiff cannot no do.
prived without compensation. that such (,
structure as the company erected In Front
street is inconsistent with the use of Front
street us u public street; that the plalntilrs
property has been taken from him without
compensation and that, us the defendants
acts are unlawful, the plaintiff has a right
10 restrain the correction and continuance
OF the road by injunction The court
however, withheld the Injunction 80 v as ~
give the company time TO ACQUIRE Tho
pla'ntiifs property by agreement or by REQ.
ular condemnation. >e
IL will DO seen that the dccision-ths frs,
ono that has been given, involving Tho
questions OF right affected by the elevated
roads IN New York, is very emphatic ANA
comprehensive. There Is nothing Tor Tho
company to do under IL bu, settle with nil
the property-owncrs whose rights have
been impaired by their ruad, either bv
agreement or regular process OF condrmnn.
lion In noticing the fact of damage tho
Evening Post remarks:
Everybody knows that there are pnrls
Of the city In which the contraction OF tbs
roads has materially changed the whole
character Of the street, SO that The lois
practically abut, not on street, but on n
railroad. II permitting the erection Of n
structure occupying the entire width az n
Roadway, supported by iron columns hlocL'
ing up the windows Of houses and siorSs
ON both sides, and covered with rnssins
aud rcpassing trains, does no, ei,sri
the use OF the street, what does Uorse.
railroad companies are not required 10 nav
compensation, because, Or at any rair 81
the theory that they do not make any ma,
terilt diff r'rce II n street as such. In,
now that the Story case has been decided
we shall probably never hear again thai
there Is any very strong resemblance I've.
tween horse cars and elevated roads In His
respect ms
These views appear to be lust. The ron.
Srnction of elevated railroads, therrfora
will hereafter involve the distinct nronos,,
ton oil buying the property, or at ieas,