The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-12-11
CITY RAILROAD CASE
Supreme Court Renders Decision In Reid
Bros. & Co. VS.. Norfolk Street Railway.
THE RAILWAY COMES OUT VICTORIOUS
The Defendants Sought to Prevent
the Laying of IL DOublc rrnck on
church Strcet-NIOrgan Treat Dis.
cusscs Resolutions by Norfolk Isc.
s publican Clubs.

Richmond. Va, Dec. 1o--(Special)-
The State Court of Appeals handed
Gown decision to-day in tho case of
Reid Bros. d Co. VS.. the Norfolk CITY
Railroad Company. The opinion was
written by Judge Cardwel and all the
judges concur in 1t. The plaintiffs all
tempted to prevent the defendant com
pany from building a double tracked
electric line along Church street. In Nor
Ioik. An Injunction was first obtained
from the judge of the Corporation
Court of Portsmouth. The Circuit
Court of Norfolk dismissed the bill.
From this this decree an appeal and
supersedeas was awarded by one OF the
judges OF the Court of Appeals.
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE
Judge Cardwells opinion, after recit-
ing the history of the case, says that
the only question presented to the Court
fs, whether or not the construction and
operation of an electric railway upon a
! street OF q city is an additional servi-
'plde or burden thereon. for which the
aputtlng lot owners are entitled 10 COM
pensation?
The court does not pass on the ques-
lions whether or not all owners could
| unite their claims in one suit.
Inc opinion says the case of Hodges
VS.. the Seaboard and Roanoke railroad
company involved the question whether
or not the occupation of q street by n
steam railroad company was the imposI-
tion OF an additional burden upon L
| street, but has no bearing upon this
case.
PARAGRAPHS OF THE OPINION.
The opinion says:
The authorities, both the adjudicated
cases and text writer's, so far as we have
peen able to examine them, overwhelm-
ingly maintain that. SO long as street
.Tcnsed or proposed to be used under
legislative and municipal authority for
purposes only for which it may be rea-
sonably said to haXe been dedicated or
acquired, Its use ar proposed use, cannot
| be enjoined as such use adds no addi-
| tional servttude or burden to the land
| for which the abuttng owners are en-
titled TO compensation.
| we do not. however. mean to say
that q street railway may not be so
constructed and operated as TO create
a new sefvitude upon the street or bur-
den upon the land, or cause injury to
| property rights which would entitle the
abutting owners to compensation or TO
damages for the injury, but such a case
is not made by appellants bill
Being of opinion, therefore, that the
construction and operation. under leg
| islaalve and municipal authority, of an
electriGt street railway is not an addl-
the abutting lot owners are entitled 10
compensation. and that n forliori the
conversion of an existing single track
honse-car railway into q double track
electric railway. Is not nhe decree of the
court below di.missing the bill of ap-
pellants is affirmed"
The cases cited in accord with the
opinion are its own in that of Home
Building and Conveyance Company VS..
CRY OF Roanoke; Limburger VS.. San
| Antonio Rapid Street Railway Com
pany CTeXa): Hal:cy VS. Rapid Transit
sey; BrIgy ". Lewiston and Auburn
Horse Railroad Company. Maine; Ster-
lings appeal, Pennsylvania.
y SIMILAR CASE.
This case is similar in many respects
to the contention between the First
street properly owners of this city. and
the Richmond Traction Company. AS
result of ';he opinion all barriers will be
removed out of the way of the Traction
company and it, as soon as the injunc-
ton granted by Judge Keith, is dissolv-
ed. may so ahead ummolested and build
its line TO Hollywood Cemetery.
MORGAN TREATS STATEMENT.
Mr.. Morgan Treat. of West Point.
member of the Republican State Com
mittee from this district is here to-day.
He said:
THE resolutions that are being sys-
tema.!caily sen; out from Norfolk, pur-
porting to have been passed by Repub-
lican clubs in that locality, are unwar-
ranted and void of the true facts In
the first place. no secret meeting OF the
State committee was held here on the
26th of November. Twenty-one mem
bers of the committee, which comprised
four-ffths of the unconrested ones. sign
ed Joint call for the meeting that he
then did notify the remaining five mem
bers who had not signed the call, and
the two contcoting delegations from the
Second and Fourth districts. II comes
with poor grace from the adherents of
Colonel Lamb to claim that they were
unseated without notice, when they had
ample notice, and that one of their num-
ber was in Richmond at the time of
meeting from the Second district, as
well as Colonel Lambs close friends and
party leaders from that district; that
the committee carefully heard the case.
and by q vote Of twenty ayes 20 one nav
seated the anti-Lamb delegation. As 10
the distribution OF the campaign funds,
they were distributed by the Campaign
Committee which tho Natlnal Commit
tee, appintcd for that purpose, and
said expenditures have been audited
and approved" He intinla.ed that pos
siby come of Speaker Reeds friends who
tried 20 secure the Virginia delegation
to ST. Louis, would not be adverse 20
having the Investigation made. though
In another direction.
DBP,A ARTMENT OF COMMERCE..
The Chamber of Commerce tonight