Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-12-11
THE RAILWAY WINS.
OPINION IN NORFOLK CASE As TO
OPERATING on STREETS.
IMPOSES NO ADDITIONAL BURDENS.
Application to fractions Holly
wood Route-The Derbyshire-Jones
conference.-the Decisions by
the Court Of Appeals Yesterday.

Railroad Company. practically says tina
the operation of an electric railway upor
a street Of a city is not burden upor
the abutting property-owners for which
they are entitled to compensation. This
substantially dsposes of the injunction
against the Richmond Traction Company,
restraining 1t from commencing work on
its proposed line down First street, out
Cary, and to Hollywood Cemetery. Judge
Cardwell wrote the opinion in the case
decided by the court yesterday, and all
the Judges concurred in IT. The Norfolk
City Railway Company was victorious,
and general precedent in matters of this
character has been laid down.
In this contest the plaintiffs attempted
70 prevent the defendant company from
building a double-tracked electric line
along Church street. in Norfolk. An in
junction was FIRST obtained from the Judge
of the Corporation Court of Ports
mouth. The Circuit Court OF Norfolk
dismissed the bill. From this decree an
appeal and supersedeas was awarded by
one of the Judges of the Court of APP
peals. ..,o,-
THE SOLE QUESTION.
Judge Cardwens opinion, after re-
citing the history Of the case, says that
the only question presented TO the court
was whether or not the construction ana
operation of an electric railway upon a
street of a city was an additional seryi-
! "a, ar burden thereon tor which the
| abutting lot-owners are entitled 10 COM
! pensation
The court. in its opinion, does not pass
! on the question whether or not an OWL
ers could unite their claims in one suit
The opinion says the case of Hodges
vs.. the Seaboard and Roanoke Rai!road
| Company. which was cited by the pam
tifs. involved the question whether OF
not the occupation Of street by steam
| railroad company was the imposition ol
an additional burden upon street, but
that 1t had no bearing on this case.
| The opinion. in conclusion, says
"The authorities, both the adjudicated
| cases and text writer's so iar as We
have been able to examine them' over
wheImingly maintain that, so long as
a street is used or proposed TO be USED
under legislative and municipal au-
tbority for the purposes only for which 1t
may he reasonably said TO have been
dedicated or acquired, its use or pro-
posed use cannot be enioined, as such
use adds no additional servitude or bur
den to the land Tor which the aOu'-
| ting owners are entitled 10 compensa-
ton. ,,,-,r,,,>-
MAY BE MADE a BURDEN.
eve do not, however, mean to say
that a street railway may not be so
/ constructed and operated as to create
a new servitude upon the street or bur
] or injury 10
nronerty-rights which would entitle the
! abutting owners to compensation or TO
/ damages for the injury but such case
| Is not made by appellants bill.
| "Reing of opinion, therefore. that the
! construction and operation, under legis-
| Iative and municipal authority, or an
electric street railway IS not an addl-
! tional servitude upon street. lot
which the abutting lot-owners are en-
| titled to compensation, and That iouoil
| The conversion OF an existing single
| track horse-car railway INTO uouDi0
| track electric railway is not, the decree
| of the court below dismissing the bill OF
appellants Is affirmed
The cases cited in accord with the
oninion are its own, in that OF Home
| building and Conveyance Company VS.
/ CITY of Roanoke: Limburger VS.. San
Antonio RaDid Street Railway Com
many CTexas); Halsey vs. Rapid Transit
Street Railway Company (New Jersey;
Briggs vs.. Lewiston and Auburn Horse
Railroad Company CMaine); Sterlngs APP
peal Pennsylvania).
THE BANK NOT LIABLE.
Another interesting case decided in
this court yesterday was that OF
richardson against the Planters
Bank of Farmville. Va, from the CIR
emit Court of the county OF Prince Ed
yard This controversy involved the
liability Of the bank for certain note
for S6 GOO deposited by one Herndon,
vcitb the written statement by the
cashier Of the bank that If the note
was paid at maturity the proceeds were
10 be devoted to the payment OF n note
of the plaintiff for 5000 Before the
first note became due 1t was Withdrawn
bv Herndon, and Richardson brought
si,it against the bank to recover therein.
The Court of Appeals held that Herndon
had not assigned the piece OF paper
and had a right TO Withdraw IL. H.
therefore, affirmed the judgment OF the
lower court.
THE DERBYSHIRE-JONES CASE.
Another case decided by the court yes
terday was that Of Derbyshire against
ZONES. This was an appeal from the
action Of the Chancery Court OF the CITY
| of Richmond. In dissolving the injunction
obtained by Major ]. II. Derbyshire, rep
resentative of the Domestic Sewing
Machine Company, in this city, against
( NJ. Jones. Of Pittsburg, Pa, who had
| negotiated about $4,000 worth OF paper
| for the company for which he held. II Il
| claimed. about $4,000 worth Of collateral.
| In This paper was a note OF Major j. n.
Derbyshire for about 1920. being part
| of s7i 9e5 Of accommodation notes given by
Derbyshire to the company. Shortly after
| the failure of the Domestic Major Derby
| shire ascertained that his note for 1920
waa In virginia, and sued out an in
junction before Judge Ingram, enjoining
| tie collection or transition from Virginia
on the ground that 1t had been given 10
| & NJ. Jones with certain property as Sc
| curitv and that had s. NJ. Jones refused
not only 10 make a statement Of what
| he had received from the property con-
yeyed TO him in trust either to Derby
shire or to the general receiver for the
Domestic Company, at Newark, n. j.
subsequently this injunction was dis
solved by Judge Lamb of the Chancery
Court. OF Richmond and Major Derby
shire carried the matter to the Supreme
Court of Appeals. This tribunal in
affirming the decree OF Judge Lamb
stated that il only passed upon the form
OF pleading and the presentation Of the
case.
The remainder of the S4995 has been
settled and has no connection with the
controversy above mentioned.
In the case of the Union Central Life
Insurance Company VS.. Pollard. the court
reverses the Judgment of the lower court,
sets the verdict aside. and awards a new
trial In accord with the views expressed
in the opinion written by Judge Buch-
anan. The verdict Is held 10 be contrary
to the evidence. owing TO the fact that