Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-02-19
AHEAD WITH THE WORK.
Judge Pierce Puts a Quiefus on the
Opposition TO The Kansas city.

Judge Pierce yesterday overruled the de-
murrers of the bumptious individuals who
are fighting the Springfield and Memphis
road. The main points OF the bills to con-
denim certain property, as well as the grounds
of the demurrer, have already been pub
lished in the APPEAL, and are embraced in
Judge Pierce's decision. Owing to a scarcity
of space the judges excellent decision of
the case cannot be published. The follow
ing extracts contain the gist of his reasoning
1.-THE general principle of law is admitted
by petitioner that foreign railroad corpo-
ration will be allowed to invoke the exercise
of the right of eminent domain only when
that privilege has been expressly accorded
by the legislature; and il is claimed that
this privilege is granted TO the petitioner by
the act above named. Demurrers to these
petitions are interposed by the owners of the
land, and several grounds of demurrer have
been presented and argued to the court.
Railroad companies are frequently,
in common parlance, spoken of
as railroads, and the legislature has
evidently allowed that practice in this
statute, in using the terms railroads and
railroad companies as in part interchange
able. To 'intersect' means to divide or cut
across; and to construe the statute literally,
as is desired by the demurrants would re-
quire the building OF the foreign railroad up
State line, before its owner would be heard
to ask for condemnation of lands in this
State. II the statute were to be thus mar
rowly construed, il would appear that the
legislature expected foreign railroad compa-
MES not only to locate their roads and secure
their rights of way outside this State, and to
construct their tracks up to the State line with
out either approximate or remote certainty as
to their routes in this State, but also to secure
lon mill fato nv
chase, and actually to build an expensive
and perhaps an improbable track across the
State line, as condition pre- edent to in
voking here the exercise OF the right of emf
nent domain, when such proceeding might
be necessary 10 the continuation of the track
in this State, and the connection with our
domestic railroads. Where the boundary
line of the State is so obscurely located, or
where a great natural obstacle like
the Mississippi river must be crossed,
the intersection cannot, OF course, be
effected by means which would suffice
in case OF boundary line located
upon the surface of the earth and defined by
monuments. Whether the petitioner in this
case shall employ bridge, ferry, or tun-
mel for the purpose, it will practically inter
sect the State line with its road by trans-
porting its trains, laden with freight and
passengers, from Arkansas to Tennessee, and
rice Jersd, and this will accomplish prac-
tically the objects aimed at by the act of
1871 To hold otherwise will Re to preserve
with care the shell of the statute, disregard
ing and rejecting its kernel. 1t will be to
hold that Memphis, then the largest city
in the State, and then and now one of its
railroad centers, ard which is
within five miles of the State line III no
other direction than west, was, by the gen.
eral assembly of 1881. designedly excluded
from the operation of statute which was
mauifestly intended to increase the CONNER
,ial facilities of the State, and to utilize for
its benefit the capital and resources of our
neighbors" The demurrers are overruled
~ aosfS