Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-21

But does the fact that The Richr,ora
FREDERICKSBURG and Potomac Railroad
Company was intended to he connected
with the Richmond and Petersburg rail
road by means of that branch depriye II of
ITS character as branch road aud deprive
the company Of the right to construct IL?
BLASroS's CONTENTION.
IL is earnestly insisted for Blauton that
il does. and for two reasons:
First, because IL will operate 10 change
the southern terminus Of the Richmond.
frcderlcksburg and Potomac Railroad
company from Richmond, where il is fixed
company had no power under section fO98
ot the Code OF 1887 to build the proposed
branch until it had been refused pernis.
sion by the city of Richmond 10 pass
through its limits for the purpose. Bnt
both OF these views are based upon patent
miSconceptions-Ono Of fact and the other
of law. '''-''
>. The company has no purpose of changing
lts terminus at Richmond Indeed the
charter requires that one of the termini az
the road shall be at Richmond, and it could
not, Therefore, change it If il would. But
IN point of fact, as the record shows. this
IS not its object. It simply proposes 10
bulld this branch for the purpose Of carry
ing through business outside of the limits
OF the city, leaving the passengers and
freight destined for Richmond TO be de-
hvered there
THE OBJECT OF SECTION 1893.
The supposition that section 1893 of the
Code OF 1887 has ANYTHING TO do with tbis
case is equally fallacious. The object of
that section, as the title TO the original act
2see Acts 1856, page s2 chapter 9s) saws
IN 50 many words, was TO promote rail
NEr ata
corporated towns" and to give to
railroad companies the right TO con-
meet outside of the limits of the
city or town whore they were refused tho
power TO connect within such towns or
cities. IL was never designed to deprive
these companies Of any power to connect
they might derive from their charters.
Upon what principle. then, can we hold
that because OF the mere circumstance
that this branch road connects these two
railroads that IT ceases to be a branch or
lateral road and is not authorized by the
charter? We know Of none II NAV be
that thus right TO make of q branch road o
connecting link between two roads NAV
have been one of the Unforeseen results Of
the grant of power. But as it does not
change the terminus, serves as n feeder to
the main stem, assists the company to de-
yelop the country through which it passes
nience both as to trade and travel, it can
not be regarded as obnoxious to any of the
objections that have been urged against it.
Mayor of Pittsburgh cs Pennsylvania Rail
road Company, ~ Pa. St. 1856, and other
cases cited supra.
But whilst il has been deemed more sat-
isfactory 10 discuss thisq1estion somewhat
on principle, vet we hardly think that it
can be regarded as an open question in this
of
and Ohio Railroad Company Us. City of
Wheeling, l3 Graft, 40, decided as far back
as 1856, this Court settled the principles
involved in such a question, and held in
express terms that the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company had, under the power
10 build branch or lateral roads, the right
20 build branch from Benwood, q point
three or four miles from Wheeling. to con-
meet with the Central Ohio road. That
case must be regarded as decisive of this
The power 20 build roads like the one in
question being given in plain and unam-
biguOus words cannot be emasculated by
this Court by construction, merely because
the trainers of the law may not have con-
templated that such "a branch or lateral
road might be made TO connect the road Of
which it is an off-shoot with some other
road.
THE TES-YEAR PROVISION.
But it is said that concedlng all this to
be true, yet that the right granted by the
seventh section Of the cOmpany's charter
to build branch lines is limited by the
thirty-fourth section of that charter, which
requires the works hereby required Of
the Richmond. Fredericksburg. and Poto-
mac Railroad Company" should be fn-
ished within ten years" This, however.
proceeds upon a misapprehension of the
meaning of the roads works required " of
the company. ManifestIy the works which
were required of this company we're the
building and equipping of the main stem
or track from Richmond to Fredericks-
burg. as may be seen from a glance at the
thirtv-eighth section of the charter, by
which section the company Is promised
immunity from competition for thirty years
in the event Of the completion of the said
railroad from the city OF Richmond
to the town of Fredericksburg within the
time limited by this act" The right to
build these branch or lateral roads was
necessarily and properly left optional with
the company TO be exercised as and when
the exigency rendering them necessary
should arise. These views are decisive OF
these cases. it follows that the order of
the Circuit Court III the second OF the
above STYLED cases must be reversed and
the order of the County Court be affirmed,
and that the order of the Circuit Court IN
the first case must be ainrmeu'
Other supreme Court Cases.
Brown against Buckner. From the CIR
emit Court of Louisa county. Reversed,
Judge Lacy delivering the opinion.
Dooley against Baynes Further argued
bv II. +. Barksdale, Esq, for defendant
and submitted. r.,
Yates. administrator, against wilson.
Argued by Major John w. Rely for appel
jant and II. w. Peatross, Esq, for appel
lee.
Ex-Judge Joseph Christian presented the
resolutions adopted by the Richmond bar
Associa ion upon the death of Colonel
Thomas ]. Evans His remarks were very
graceful and the tribute, he PAID the de-
eeaaSed was eloquent and deserved. He ex-
pressed the general judgment in speaking
of the rare beauty of the resolutions,
which were the work of Mr.. E. \. Cannon