The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1894-01-12
VOL 90
THE PEASE JASE.

road Company VS.. II. c. Pease on the
5th inst. AS the case has attracted
considerable attention the opinion of
the court is printed in full.
OPINION.
The Rail Road Company, Plaintiff,
has the right Of way, thirty feet wide,
through the lands of the Defendants,
the Bloomsbury Iron Company, ct al =,
at the point where this dispute arises,
on which to lay and operate double
track rail road.
On this right of way, at Iron Dale,
the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants
are intruding, by promoting the loca-
tion and erection of new, permanent
building for manufacturing purposes,
which building is IN the course Of con-
struction to the extent of about sixty
feet along the west side thereof, and
of about six feet at its northwestern
corner, and that if the said building
be completed and permitted to remain,
it will be impossible to construct and
operate the double track rail road on
said right of way, and therefore ire
parable injury will result to the Plain
tiff.
The Defendants aver that said new
building does not intrude or encroach
upon the said right of way as appro-
priated by said Plaintiff that at the
point of the alleged interference the
present track Of the rail road as con.
structed by the Plaintiff, is and was
located and constructed along the
eastern side of said right OF way, by
agreement and understanding between
the said Plaintiff and the then owners
of the land, and at that time it was
also agreed and understood between
the same parties, that in subsequently
changing track already laid, or in lay.
ing another or double track, they
should be laid west of the present
track, or SO placed that they would
not encroach upon or in anywise inter
fere with any Of the old buildings then
standing, or the land on which they
stood. The Defendants further aver
that the said new building complained
of is outside of the eastern line or lin
it of the Plaintiffs right of way, and
entirely within the line or limit of land
occupied by old buildings existing at
the time of the appropriation of the
right of way by said Plaintiff, and east
of the eastern line Of said appropria.
tion as fixed and established by all
parties then interested.
Therefore interesting and import
ant questions of fact as TO the truth of
these allegations, upon the one side
and upon the other, must be carefully
considered and determined at the
proper stage of this case.
Declarations of party, or of their
agents, officers, or employees, made
in the absence of the other party, can
only be received as evidence when it
is against the interest of the party
making them, or in corroboration of
the evidence of the other party. By
the identified and proved draft, or
map of survey in tine rail road compa-
ny's Office, the location of the original
centre line of the Plaintiffs right Of
way, and the location and construction
of the rail road track on said right of
way in reference to said centre line,
through the land of the Defendants,
plainly appears and measuring east
from either, a portion of the new
building, at the northwest corner, is
within the limit of fifteen feet. In the
construction of the present rail road
track, along and at the point in con-
troversy, it was located and built west
of the centre line of the right Of way.
as fixed and established by said Office
map, Or sdtvsy, by the Plaintiff Com
pany. In consideration of that fact
and of the location and condition of
the tail race and old buildings, and
the working Of the furnace property OF
Defendants, is it reasonable to believe,
in case the evidence should be other
wise evenly balanced, that in the con-
struction of another or double track
it was to be bull. west of the present
track. This seems to be the position
attempted to be established by the
Defendants, and which it is necessary
for them to establish, in order to justi
fly the location and construction oI
the new building complained of.
But it is better, perhaps, to refrain
from further discussion Of the merit:
of the case at this time.
The affidavits and drafts of the
Plaintiffs disclose a prima facie right
of way in the Plaintiff, over the lanC
covered by portion Of the new build
ing, which right is denied by the aft
davits OF the Defendants, and we
might continue the injunction until the
question can be determined by fna
hearing, or further order of the Court
But it is clear to our minds, however
la~. 70 Io.oo. Af