The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-01-23
KIHGsBRID9E FRASCHISE ToID.
Appellate Division says tho Sale to tho
Third Avenue Raiiroad Was Illegal.

Appellate Division says tho Sale 60 tho
Third Avenue Railroad Was Illegal.
Dorothy R Christ and Catherine l.. Beck
man brought suits to prevent tho Third Ave-
nue Railroad Company from building an over
lead trolley extension OF the.railroad on Kings
bridge road. north Of lo2d street. Plaintiffs
said such q road would damage their property.
Counsel for tho railroad company asserted that
neither OF the plaintiffs had q rgiht TO Ask for
confederation as to q restraining order against
construction CT tho proposed road anywhere
except opposite their own real estate. Fur
ther. 1t was alleged. that tho plaintiffs had
neglected to appeal 10 the courts until after
the railroad company had expended something
like 81. 00o. 900 on the extension. The extern
ion. when completed, WOULD be moro than
seven miles.
A decision Of the :Appellate Division OF the
Supreme Court. handed down yesterday,
affirmed with n modification the preliminary
injunction. which was granted In December
last by Justice Truax. at the suit OF the
owner OF Chris:'s Hotel. ls2d street and Kings
bridge roai, restraining the construction by
the Third Avenue Railroad Company Of Its
Kingsbridge extension from the junction OF
Amsterdam avenue aud 1924 street" The
modification limits the In junction 10 .orbidding
construction OF the railroad in front Of plain.
tins premises. inasmuch as the action Is found
ed upon special damage 10 the property owner
nothing on the second to show that access 10
the plaintiffs premises will be interfered with
by tearing I'M streets seven miles away
The affirmanco. OF tho order OF Justice
Truax Involved. however. O holding by the
Appellate Division that The attempt to sell
was invalid. and that the Third Avenue Rail
road COMPANY acquired no right to build.
concurrei in by the other Justices, assumes
as conceded that an attempt 70 build rail
ity is . nuisance. and that the city Of New
islAtive permission. TO graz ia franchise for
eSnstruSting and maintaining railroad in
TIE public streets "a. n1d Therefore no sale Of
With In the manner prescribed by tho Lcgsla-
Tho leading objection.to the legality Of tho
By tho city under the State Railroad act. was
that more than one extension OF lines already
tice OF sale. and that the city has no power
under the statute to sell moro than ono at n
time. This was tho only objection passed
The extensions Of lines are separated from
each other by an interval OF more than half a
mile, No other company than the defendant
| Meeting lines between them. IL It Ia permitted
| to tell at ono time two extensions which are
| the same sale two extensions cannot be but a ..
ono Of which should involve tho right 10 run
the defendants road from Its present south
| ern terminus to the BATTERY. and tho other In
cludo the particular extensions which were
soldhere. IF Two extensions are sold AZ time
Ten may be sold ,the result would necessarily,,bo
| that the only bidder would be tht corporation
whose railroad connected with each OF the two
extensions.which were sold ut one auction. be-
take the building OF ten detached pieces OF rail.
road which had no connec ion with each other
| except through the road OF a competitor, and
plant"