The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-03-10
Pennsylvania Against the
National Docks and
Junction Con-
neCtiOn.
THAT POINT OF ROCKS DISPUTE
Whichever Way Vice Chancellor
Green Decides, There Will Be
Still Another Appeal
in the Case.

Opou Inc application OIL UH6 EeuIlSyl'
vania Railway Company yesterday,
through James B. Vreedenburg, it's
counsel, Judge Green. of the United
States District Court. granted tempo
rary injunction against the National
Docks and the Now Jersey Junction Con-
Meeting Railway Company. The bill filled
by the petitioners. would I'LL page of The
NEWS, and required three days constant
work to put into shape. Its object is to
restrain the National Docks,an the juno
tion Company from crossing the Pennsyl-
vania's property at Point of Rocks
The bill sets forth that the National
Docks and Junction Railway Company
want to condemn 524 feet of land at this
place for crossings and 495 feet of land
absolutely. To meet the grade established
by these companies the Pennsylvania
Company would have to elevate its tracks
five, feet on the south side of the
road where the National Docks and
junction road would meet it. This COM
pany's tracks would from this point
descend grade until. when it passed
under the north side of the Pennsylvania
tracks, IL would be thirteen feet below
them.
ton The bill praying for the lnjunS
outlay of money the Pennsylvania
Company has made in connection with
this strip of land wanted by the National
Docks and junction Company during the
last i've or six years, for work that was
begun long before the National Docks
and junction Company was organized.
THE IMPROVEMENTS.
The bill speaks of the elevated road,
new depot, new ferry boats, the great
round house at Point of Rocks. the nu-
merous tracks which run over the strip of
land disputed. (The petition recites that
on March 30. 1889 the National Dock
and New Jersey junction connecting
Railway Company began proceedings
before Justice knapp to condemn the
strip of land before mentioned, aud that
Judge Knapp on May 2, 1889. appointed
Marcus Beach, John Newman and Peter
Henderson commissioners to condemn
such lands.
A writ of certiorari was obtained by the
Pennsylvania Company which set up
that the title to the lands ia
question was in the name of
the United Railroads of New Jersey and
Canal Company. which had been leased
by the Pennsylvania Company for 900
years, and for which the Pennsylvania
Company paid the annual rental Of
81, 100000.
PROCEEDINGS SET ASIDE.
The Supreme Court set aside the con-
demnation. proceedings on January 4,
and Junction Company, upon
a writ of error. took the
case to the Court of Errors and Appeals
for review. This court reversed the de-
cision of the Supreme Court during the
March term. 1891. After the Judgment of
the Supreme Court was given, Peter Hen
dersoD, one of the Commissioners, died,
and when the Court of Errors reversed
his Judgment. the National Docks and
junction Company was unable to proceed
in the matter Of the condemnation of the
land, because there was no provision in
mission OF -, condemnation might
be filed. The National Docks
and Junction Company overcame
this obstacle by causing an act to be
passed, which was approved March II,
1891. which permitted Supreme Court
May 49, 1891, Judge Knapp appointed
Richard c. Washburn Commissioner in
the place made vacant by the death of
Peter Henderson.
The Pennsylvania Company on May 49,
1891. obtained writ of certiorari to have
ment of Mr.. Washburn. The question
was argued, and on June "a. 1891, the
Supreme Court affirmed the appointments
of Mr.. Washburn. This decis- |
ion was appealed from and an
other legal battle was had |
IN Lne COurb OIL ErTOrS ana Appeals This |
court also affirmed the appointment of
Mr.. Washburn and rendered decision |
on February 2S of the present year.
GREAT INJURY POSSIBLE.
In praying for the temporary injunc. |
tion granted by Vice Chancellor Green |
the petitioners set forth that unless |
the Commissioners are restrained from |
making condemnation proceedings. these |
will begin at once in the Office OF Dickfn- |
son & Thompson, to the great injury of |
the company. The company also main
tains that the claim of the National |
Docks and Junction Company is contrary |
to fundamental law, in that 1t takes prop |
erty without due process of law, and be- |
sides no statute of the State has author |
lied the contemplated proceedings.
The Pennsylvania Company claims fur
ther that the charter from the State which |
the United Railroads of New Jersey |
possess is an irrepealable contract, while |
the National Docks and junction Com
pany has no charter and is simply organ
ized under the general railway law.
1t is more than probable that wnen the |
case is argued before Vice Chancellor
Green, no matter what his decision NAV |
be, an appeal will be taken to the United |
States Supreme Court. where 1t may drag
along for years.