The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-09-18

PENNSY WINS AGAIN
Court of Errors Overrules
the Chancel1or's Decree
in the Junction Case.
FULL TEXT OF THE OPINION
Relation of Chancery to the Highest
Court Defined by Chief Justice
Beasley.
FULL TEXT OF THE OPINION
sp.otal to the JERSEY ottp Nssus.

spectal to the Jesseu Cftp Netss.
TRENTON, Sept IS, 1SsS.-chief 1usltcs
Beasley. yesterday, filed a very ihpof'
opinion in the Court of Errors ana Ap
peals, in which the Court OF Chahcets
IS reversed. The Chief Justice also oe-
fines certain prerogatives OF the Cha"s
Gerry Court.
The opinion was filed in the case IN
which the Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany is appellant and the National DOCKS
and New Jersey junction Connecting
Railway Companies are respondents. Ine
Chief Justice in the opinion says that a
notion has long since prevailed in the
Chancery Court thai to a large extent i
is one of its -prerogatives to establish the
boundaries Of jurisdiction in the Couft
Of Errors and Appeals.
Continuing. he says:-sIt is difficult 10
understand how, in right reason, such a
view ~shouldfaaave obtained" The Chiet
Justice reverses the decree of the Cham
ceilor. In the syllabus he says
.sThe effect of filing an appeal to this
Court is to prevent the decree in the
Court Of Chancery from destroying or
smpairing the subject of the appeal, or
being in any degree used for that pur-
pose.
1.-THE right of appeal in this State is the
creature OF the statute, confirmed by the
Constitution and ass4he creation of the
right is given in general terms, such
right is not to be restricted by the prac-
tee of the English courts.
The decree, whether introductory or
final in the court below Will be construed
ard controlled so as to preserve the APP
pellate cognizance of this Court over the
entire subject matter; ana 5or ms puhra
continued or suspended, or a dissolved IN
Owing to the Importance of the opinion
we publish it in full.
ssThef respondent, by condemnation. ac-
qusred the right to cross the car-yard of
the appellant, by means OF a subterranean
-passageway.
1.-THE respondent eontended that in the
proper construction of the p~assageway in
question it was necessary that the sur
face Of the car yard should be raised.
and that in making said subterranean
roadway the tracks of the appellant,
crossing such proposed excavation, would
have to be cut and kept open during the
progress of the work.
The excavation of this project being
resisted by the appellant, a bill was filed
tc ouell such opposition, the result being
a decree. which was thus expressed. viz:
THAI the defendants be n they hereby
are enjoined and restrained from OBJ
structing the complainant in the con-
1 LIZ III Is dltIOd dli0 IA az L40PO-4
the route of the complainant according
to the plan and in the manner set forth
in the order of amendment of the Hudson
Circuit Court. dated September 80, 1899,
and in the statement filed July II, 1895, in
the office of the Clerk of said court, &C.,
end from placing or maintaining any cars
within the route of complainant upon de-
PENDANTS yard tracks l, 2 and 5, being the
most southerly of the yard tracks in the
car yard of defendants, covered by COM
plainant's route until the complainant
SHALL Ia-rA 80 ~
tracks, &c.
From this decree the appellant duly
appealed Within ten days from its date.
In this situation the respondent en-
deavored to proceed with its work, but
fuch attempt was actively repuised by
fhe appellant, and which, in spite of the
decree, maintained in its yard passenger
cars on its tracks 90 and ~ at the place
OF respondents crossing. As this conduct
was IN plain violation of the decree ap-
peaied from, on motion the appellant was
ed1udged to be in contempt, and ii is this
decree that was brought before this court
py this appeal" s
The Chief Justice then goes on to saw
From the statement preceding this
opinion, 1t appears that the appellant was
enJolned from opposing the making a
certain subterranean causeway through
ats car-yard by the respondent, and that,
notwithstanding such inhibition. the pro-
nfpited resistance was made. For that
0lsobedience the appellant has been ad-
Judged 10 De IN contempt, and from this
latter judgment the present appeal has
been taken.
The appellant does not deny that it dis
ooeyed the decree in question, both with
respect to it's mandatory and its pro-
nipitlve command, for it is admitted that
II did not remove its trains as directed.
ana that IT did obstruct the respondent
N the construction of the archway in
the manner that had been approved of
contention was and is that by its appeal
these mandates of the inferior court had
been absolutely Suspended, and that the
appellant had the right to wholly dis
1T will be observed, therefore, that the
single injury on this occasion is. witt. re-
spect to the effect of an appeal to this
Court from a decree rendered in the Court
OF Chancery. The Chancellor adopted the
theory insisted, on blythe respondent. that
an appeal has no suspensive effect on the
operative force of a decision in his Court.
and in this respect he has the support of
sundry dlcta in our own State and else
Wnere- But such expressions of opinion
We're not called for IN any of the cases
cited, and must be regarded, consequently
as entirely obiter, while, at the same time,
It must be conceded, that a notion has
long prevailed in the Court of Chancery
Lnal, 10 a large extent. 1t is one of its
prerogatives to establish for this Court
Inc boundaries Of its jurisdiction.
ana TINS assumption has exhibited itself
NOT only in the dicta referred to but also
In the more imposing form of stated rules
of court. When it is provided that an
appeal shall not per Sc, stay an inter-
loeutory decree, and that. when an appeal
from a final decree has been put in within
ten days after the Ming of such decree,
the same shall be suspended unless other
wise ordered, no room is left for doub:
that the conviction exists that it is q
function of the inferior court to regulate
and define the force of the appellate pro.
cess OF this tribunal. 1t is difficult Il
understand how. in right season. sucI
a view should have obtained. The only
reason that appears to have been as
signed is hat it is and for a long tim
has been the practice of the court. Blu
when we ask where such a practice ha.
prevailed, the reply must be that it ha.
prevailed only in the Court of Chancery
for 1t does not seem that it can be claimed
that, in any respect, such a course O.
law has received the sanction of thi
Court. II is not perceived that this Cour
has ever permitted anything to be dor,