The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-02-12
PORTSMOUTH LOSES.
her Suit to Compel 1he Atlantic and
DaRYille to Return.
4 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NOTED CASE
Tne;Decision Of the Court or Appenls
Rendered Yesterday Mt Richm nd
Was IN Favor of the Railway Com
pRny--The Roads Principal Termt.
mus Will Reninin at West Nonfoik.

Among the opinions handed down by
the Court Of Appeals at RichmondVes-
terday was one in the case Of Sher-
wood and others VS.. the Atlantic and
great Interest in this section. This case
IS perhaps more populaily known as the
mandamus case of the City Of Ports
mouth VS.. the Atlantic and Danville
railway company, to requ.fe-iss 10 fe-es-
tahlish its principal tidewater terminus
at Portsmouth, and to re-loca te Its shops
and principal Offices In that city.
The public will doubtless recall that in
1889 the city Of Portsmouth subscribed
$4,000 Of Its bonds 10 the stock of the
pany in consideration Of which the COM
pany agrees to construct Its line into
portsmouth, and to make that city Its
main Eastern terminus. and to locate
there It's general Offices, freight and pas.
senger depots, and 10 build It's round
houses. main shops, and freight yards
within or adjacent; to abolish the pas
Senger transfer between West Norfolk
and this city; to do all Of its pa ssenger
and local freight business through
handle all its general business through
that city. with certain specified excep-
tions.
This contract was complied with by
the original company, and Portsmouth
continued TO be the general Eastern ter
minus Of the road for about five years,
and the offices and shops Of the COM
pany remained where they were estab-
lished. during that period.
IN 1881 the road was found to be alb
solutely bankrupt, and was placed in
the hands OF a receiver by the United
states Court. At the time the contract
with the city was made the property
or the company was heavily mortgaged,
Which was fo1eclosed In this suit in the
United States Court.
. THE nrOnartv n tho comm NV woe sold
under decree Of the court in April,
1884, but the receiver, under direction Of
the court. remained III charge until Al
gust or that year.
In June, 1894, while the receiver was
still in charge, and operating the prop
erty under orders Of The court but for
the benefit Of the purchasers, he, under
the authority Of the court and at the
purchasers request, removed the track
on Wythe street, in Portsmouth, and dis
continued the running of train into that
city Later the new company removed
Its offices from Portsmouth, and built
new and extensive shops at Lawrence
vlile, Brunswick county, abandoning al
together the Portsmouth location for
both shops and roundhouses
The reason assigned for this move on
The part OF the receiver and the COM
pany was that 1t was found necessary
to greatly economize in order that the
new company might live, and the main
tenance OF this Portsmouth terminal was
very expensive, without any correspond
ing Increase in the earnings. This item
OF expense was largely increased by the
fact that the road owned none OF It's
Portsmouth terminals and was obliged
to rent
The city Of Portsmouth naturally OBJ
1ected to this removal. and from time to
time. the matter has been under discus
sion as to the best course 10 pursue in
order to make the road return to the
decided tn "a
tition In the name Of some of the citi
zens of Portsmouth. In the Supreme
Court Of Appeals Of Virginia. praying
for a mandamus to compel the road 70
re-esta blish It's terminals at Portsmouth.
ana to restore its Offices. shops, etc, to
their old locations.
This petition was filed about a year
ago. and was argued before the Court
OF Appeals about the middle Of Janu
ary last.