Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-23
DISMISSED THE BILL.
JUDGE. wspDiLL REFUSES TIE
INJUNCTION AGAINST r., r.'& q. .
SrRsSG EUsY PAY THE COSTS.
Decision Rests on Question Raised
Ia the Demurrcr--Tbe Alleged con-
tract Was Vague and Uncertain
Court of Equity Not Competent.

road wac dismissed with costs IN the
United States Circuit Court yesterday.
The opinion was rendered By Judge Wad-
diil.
Strang filed bill in equity in this court
10 compel the specific performance OF a
contract alleged 20 exist between himself
and the Richmond. Petersburg and caro-
lima Railway company. which contract
was alleged to have been made with De-
wit Smith. president Of said railroad
company. Mr.. Strang also asked for an
Injunction TO restrain the railroad COM
pany from interfering with his work I'M
der the alleged contract and prevent it
and the Mercantile Trust Company from
issuing or parting with the bonds Of the
company.
judge Waddll granted a temporary in
Junction. but yesterday refused TO make
II permanent and dismissed the bin on
demurrer by the defendant company
EFFECT OF THE DECISION.
The case vas decided on the questions
arising i'm the demurrer 10 the bill, thus
making ~ unnecessary TO pass upon the
merits OF the motion for an injunction.
The text of Judge Waddil's opinion-4s
n follows.
In the condition OF the pleadings II will
be necessary. first, 10 dispose or the ut-
murrer % the BIZ. and IN the View Inc
Court takes Of that question il VAL be un-
necl ssary TO pass upon the merits OF the
motion for an injunction. Upon me oe-
murTcr ID becomes material 10 inquire
whether the case made by the bill IS one
in which a court OF equity viii decree spe-
ciic performance Of contract ana upon
this the following questions arise:
/. Whether a court OF equity VIII enter
tain a bin 10 lecrce specific performance
o. "A contract 20 build a railroad.
. or for the specific performance OF n
contract 10 deliver railroad bonds IS
sued or &c be issued. in aid OF the con-
EtructiOn Of a railroad.
8. Whether or not the complainant mas
"a complete and adequate remedy al law
md such as therefore. disentltlcs him 10
relief IN a court Of equity; and,
4. Whether. concedng the remedy IN
equity and that the court should enter
tain bill for the specific performance OF
contract. such as is sought 70 De en-
forced. whether there really exists such
"A contract as the court should enter upon
the enforcement Of
is A SETTLED PRINCIPLE.
That courts Of equity will not decree
specific performance Of contracts TO bulid
railroads Is now too well settled 10 admlt
Of discussion. a leading case on the SUD
1ect IN this country IS that OF Ross vs..
the Union Pacific Railway Company, l
WOODWORK Reports ID. g. 49, SO. 81. This
case was decided by Mr. Justice Miller,
sitting on circuit. and has since been ap-
proved by the Supreme Court OF the
United States in Texas Railway, &c, vs..
Marshall iS6 IT, S. 1913. 407. To the same
effect Is the decision Of Judge Dillon, OF
the United states Circuit Court fellon
vs. r. Il. Co. / Dillon. ~. l25. And the
Supreme Court Of Virginia has likewise
Haln fn ~ Ewing
LetChheid. 81 Va. Tp. 5l5. SO These au-
thorities would seem 10 be conclusive or
this question.
Complainant. however, insists that this
case Is not necessarily controlled by these
authorities. because, as he contends It's
object IS not 10 require the building OF
railroad. but 10 allow him. complainant,
20 complete the building of one upon
which he has entered. and 10 enlOin and
restrain defendant from. in the mean
time interrupting him in his work. making
other contracts in connection thcicWlth
and from parting with It's securities
pledged 10 him for the work 10 be per
formed by him.
This contention, while quite ingenious,
IS fallacious. for the reason that one OF
the objections to courts OF equity entering
upon the enforcement OF such contracts
az all is that complete relief cannot be
given by "A specific decree or by several
DEGREES carrying out given direction.
For instance, under the mortgage IN TINS
case the issue OF bonds is contemplated
upon the completion of certain DIVISIONS
or sections of the road. This would neces-
sarily require Independent action OF the
court TO be had AT different times ana
under different circumstances, and neces-
sarly dependent upon many conditions
which IL would b. next to impossible 20
anticipate or fOresee. Another principle
governing suits for specific performance
gnd specially applicable 90 this case, Is
that the remedy 10 be AFFORDED by the
- mol lnH Ia
that the court shall not afford one party
relief and not the other. . StOrNs Eq.,
Jr.. sections III, 623. $50; Cathcart vs.. Rob
inson, 8 Peter; 26i; Marble Company VS.
Ripley, ~ Wall, 339 3j9; Arson ". Town
send. e Col, il5 Cooper VS.. Penna. q
Cal. 403. and leading cases in equity
NWhite & Tudor, note lle7
NOT \ CASE FOR RESTRAINT.
To restrain the defendant railroad COM
pany from interfering with the complain
ant I'm the construction OF this road, ana
To take from IL tho control of its securi-
ties. amounting 10 &5OJ,V.O and hold them
Tor the benefit of complainant. ana TO
cause their payment ana delivery 10 MN
upon such terms ana conditions as the
Court might impose. would be manliestiy
improper ana unjust, unless coupled with
the requirement of performance on COM
plalnants part of what enuued nm 10
this relief and that woulc Involve the
building OF the railroad. In other words,
To adopt this theory the Court would be
indirectly attempting 10 do what II could
not directly DO. Besides, II would neces-
sarily involve the SPECIFIC performance
OF a contract for the delivery OF railroad
bonds. which is. OF itself. one of doubttd
propriety. and upon which the Court
ought not TO enter, certainly under the
circumstances of this case. : story fqr
Jr.. sections M. llla, us I2ia; Pm spec.
PERI "A, q. Ross vs.. Union Pac. Ky. Co.
WOclworth g. supra. ana cases therc
cited: Cuddee VS.. Rutter. English Ruling
Cases. ell and note =. 6i5.
Complainant comes into this form De
cause of alleged inadcluacy OF relief at
law. This. in a large measure, depends
upon the character OF the RELIEF 10 wnich
he is entitled, unless IL be that upon the
mere allegation Of insolvency, ne Is en-
titled 20 redress in court of equity. rms
Is not my understanding of the law.
Something more than an apprehension
that judgment, II obtained VIII not
prove awaiting on account OF insolvency
Is necessary 10 Justify court of equity
In reaching forth it's hand 10 give relief.
Serious consequences may result bN thls
action on the part of the court. The right
of trial by jury l. Denied the parties,
and courts OF equity should only inter-
Vone where the remedy az law is plainly
Inadequate, that is 10 say, where by
ordinary legal procedure the merits OF
the controversy. according TO right and
Justice. cannot be gotten at and relief al
fOrdcd StOry's Ep.. Jr.. section 80 and
note: liver VS. Richmond Traction Co,
i6S l.. s. al, 4S0: Fallon vs.. Railroad
Co. Dillon. 1856, supra.
DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED.
There Is no apparent reason why dam
ages. commemorate with the injury done
cannot be recovered at law Tor the breach
OF tbs alleged contract IN this case. aris-
ing either from failure 10 allow the work
to- so on OF TO pay for the same when
built.
Assuming, however. ia this case. that
equity has jurisdiction, should the court
enter uDOn the enforcement OF such a