The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-03-27

the Western Union Telegraph Comranv-WI-
hams II. \. J.. Rep i06, and the authorities there
ciiod.
Sin which case il Is said it is obvious. and u
so held III many cases that the construction OF
railroad upon highway j. an addiiional s,r.i
tndo upon the land Tor which the owner II ~, IL
tied 20 additional CONDENSATION Inc Ju'Ee
80 establish n railroad upon the land is 70
impnrt an additional servi.ude thereon anu Is
taking within the meaning Of the (onsniuiion.
10 take the whole subject the lani I'D -, i'
q taking. This. however - me meaning Oh '"'
term only in a limited sense ~ the isri4 ,ro~,
81 he constitutional PROVISION winch N''iai'
that property shall not be taken for vuhlo use
VII hOut inst cOmlonslfIun. was intended 70 c.-
tablish this irinciplc beyond legislative con rol.
and n D. not necessary that property should De
Absolutely taken. in sense OF com lctclN taken
10 bring The case wirhin the projection Oh lAo
constitutional prov. ion referred 70. -,
~ he entry uron fhc emit In tins case hy IN
railroad is sought 70 nc -I,tlncd hf ihc 81 ION
olg OF The Code OF Virginia. which is r. he'd ON
10 give the right That section iroVdts ihsi
NO company shall cross ~ occupy WIN u-
works the streets and alleys 90 amy ciiL or 'n"h
ithoui fhe assent "i W. c'riei-iv TO-
thereof unle.. such assent Pc dlsltn-el win hN
special provision of law; ami ln mo- ease amy i't'
or lofts along the line OF such streets or illr}-
shall iy such occupation or Gro. inE d. lhlit
in vnlue Such company shall. iciorc crossing
or occupying such streets or alleys lnrhe 'unl-
ponsation therefor 70 me Owner oi lny I'M nm,
upon the same. TO be ascefialn,d IN the Moue
prescribed by law
~ he assent OF the town authorize, was OIL
tanned i'm this case. Int mo- conn en- atnh was
paid or rendered 20 the platinum. Who claim.
that his rOf erty wa. not only impaired .h Ntlu'
10 some degree. but w,ll-mgh destroyed Dl ihe
proposed taking.
Aitera thorough review of the case AMI re-
cital of much law. the Justice closed hls "ilh-
ion with these remarks ..
For the foregoing reasons we are OF OF iili"Il
10 render the decree comi'ia Ined ol ana ailc3I-
ed from. and 10 render now -uch dt irr n 'he
said Circuit Court ought 90 have rendered. "Ii.i
10 perpetuatc the injunction awarded lh lHI'
case Oh the 3lst day of July. lNfl
other Opinions Rendered.
Perrin against the Commonwealth. From the
Cirrrit (ourt of Gloucester county. EtfLr-td,
Judge FauntlcrOy delivering Opinions Ju"-c
Richardson dissenting.
Davis against Gordon. From the hane.ry
Court Of the cityof Richmond A'nNmcd' 'Ud-e
Richardson delivering thc opinion
Chapman against IorNnEcr- FROM lhr 'i.-
cult Court OF Roanoke county. i{cl ,i.Iui
Hinton delivering the opinioh' Ju1to hl'h"i"-
son dissenting.
Iimberlakes administrator against Jennings.
From the Circuit Court of New hfni county
Affirmed hy am equally divided cour.
Richmond and honflIe haliroAd conn any
against La Prads adnnls'rafuN. hehcar.h+
denied .
Watson against Commonwealth irrther ar,
pueI lv h ravl0r Scott for Commonwealth ana
IS Davis for plaintiff IN error auf sulm.tirl
Holleran against MC7cl- FROM me 'fcnt
Court of the city Oi Richmond. reversed,
Judge Lewis delivering the opinion. JuiA c' LACY
and Hinton dissenting.