The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-03-15


to grant an order to the effect that the
to direct what disposition should be made
of it.
NO TENDER TO THE OWNERS.
Counsellor Vredenburgh today claimed
that the court should take jurisdiction oi
the money paid to County Clerk Mclaughlin
and also that legal tender had not been
made to the owners and that tender to the
attorney of the Pennsylvania Company was
not tender to the owners. He insisted that
the money should be paid into the Court OF
Chancery SO that it might be invested and
draw interest
Ex-Governor Bedle admitted that it was
perfectly clear that under Section IL OF the
general railway law, that when legal ten
der and q refusal had been made, the money
could be paid into the Circuit Court. He
added that the Junction company claimed
| that when the money was paid into the
court it could take possession of the lands, and
insisted that unless it was perfectly clear that
it was the duty of the court to receive this
money it ought not to do so. The Jurlsdlc-
tion of the court must be perfectly clear In
the matter and if there was any doubt as to
jurisdiction the case should go to the Court
of Chancery. The ex Governor took the
ground that there was no jurisdiction III
the Circuit Court to receive the money
unless a tender and refusal to &C
cept the money had been made,
which he admitted the plaintiffs had consti-
tutional right to make and the defendant to
refuse. He claimed that payment into the
Circuit Court of the money without legal
tender and refusal was unconstitutional Tor
no tribunal had right to take from a man
the right to make tender or to
refuse it. The only jurisdiction the
Circuit Court had to receive the money was
conferred by statute, which provides that
where tender and refusal had been made
the money might be paid into the court. He
insisted that such legal tender and refusal
had not been made, and that the Circuit
Court ought not to receive the money, that
it therefore had no jurisdiction. The ex-
Governor insisted that the Court of Chancery
and to give the defendants the benefit OF a
bill in that court.
FUNCTIONS ACTION PROPER.
John r. Emory for the Junction Company
closed the argument. He contended that
the Pennsylvania Company not only had the
money but also the land that had been con-
demned, and that each day the Pennsylvania
Company refused to take the money they
imposed on his clients the burden of SIS in
terest He claimed that Vice Chancellor
Van Fleet had decided that the tender was
good, but that the payment to the clerk OF
the court without an order from the
court and without notice to the de-
IendanUS was no legal paYlneHI anu
that when the statute directs that money
can be paid into any particular court with
out designating who shall take charge of the
money, that court shall decide who shall be
the custodian. Counselor Emory contended
that the tender to Mr. Vredenburgh and his
refusal to accept it complied with the
statute in question. and insisted that the
only right the Court of Chancery had to re-
ceive the money was implied, while the
authority to pay the money into the Circuit
Court was express. He declared that his
clients had right to pay the money into the
Circuit Court, and that it was the
duty of that court to receive it.
The right to condemn the lands had been
adjudicated upon, and it was but natural
conclusion that the right existed to pay into
the court which gave the right to condemn.
The one must of necessity follow the other.
Judge Lippincott took the papers and will
render decision next Saturday Should
the decision be in favor of the junction Com
pany, proceedings will be begun Immediate
1y, either in the Court of Chancery or by a
suit of ejectment to acquire the lands which
have been condemned, but which the Penn
sylyania Company refuses to surrender the
possession of. The Pennsylvania Company
win also carry the case to another court if
the decision is against it.