Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1884-02-21
JEFFERSON COUNTY, W VA, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2l 1854

such q case. There is one very OBVIOUS one
which this Court has heretofore held would
give court of equity jurisd c..:o1, and that
is when the internal improvement company
has destroyed entirely the value of the own
er's property, though it has not taken 1t
literally. In such case the condition OF the
owner of the private property so destroyed
in value, is entitled to aninjunction to pre-
vent this destruction till the value OF his
properly has been asccrtained and paid Just
ia he would if his private property had been
taken And whenever his private property
is taken. rs a matter of course court OF
equity will enjoin the holding of 1t by the
internal improvement company till it has
paid or secured to be paid to the owner Its
value. For in no other way could the Con-
stitutiOnal provision that private property
shall not be so taken until lis value has
been paid or secured to be paid be en-
forced by the Courts. An examination is
the proceedings of the Constitutional Con-
vention shows clearly that this marked diff
ference between the taking and the damag-
ing of private property for public use, was
adopted after the most mature deliberatIon
and the fullest discussion.
In the case of Mathew III. Hale, his bill
does not even pretend to allegc any peculiar
circumstances which could possibly give q
court of equity any jurisdiction, ard there
fore clearly the Circuit Judge ought 10 have
granted no injunction in his case. The al
legation in his bill that he would suffer ir-
repablc damage, rs he states no facts show
ing that he would suffer any peculiar dam
age cannot possibly give court OF equity
any jurisdiction. In all the other cases the
facts proven show most clearly that there
were in them no peculiar circumstances
which would justify court OF equity IN
hearing the Ease or ailording any relief.
But the bills in these cases made out much
stronger cases on behalf of the plaintiffs
than really existed, as shown by the evil
dence, and we have not deemed 1t necessary
TO express any opinion on the question,
whether the Circuit Judge should have n
wardcd an Injunction in these cases. II Is
clear. we think, that all the injunctions
should, on the motion of the defendants
have been modified so rs TO enable the de-
PENDANTS to proceed with their work upon
executing bond with good security condl-
toned that they would pay to the plaintiffs
scverally all costs and damages they might
sevcrally sustain by reason of the construc-
ton of the railroad trestling along seventh
street, which might thereafter be awarded
against the defendants or either of them.
In all of the causes the order made by the
Circuit Judge in vacation on July 10th,
1888, refusing to dissolve the several inJun.
c,ions awarded in said cases must be reversed
and all of said injunctions must be dissolved
and the plaintiffs must pay to the appellant
its costs in this court expended and the
causes must be remandcd to the Circuit
Court of Mason, to be dismissed at the
plaintiff cos's unless good cause be shown
against snch dismis,ion as provided for in
section Il of chapter l33 OF tn, Code OF
West Virginia"