The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-03-07
TO COMPENSATE OWNERS.
Telegraph and Telephone
Companies Must Pay Prop
erty Owners for Erect
ing Poles.
Especial to .erhe Jersey city News."l

Especial to .'The Jersey City News.']
TRENTON, March Z, 1s~99.-Opinions in
cases argued at the last term of the
| Court of Errors and Appeals We're rem
dered yesterday, a number of important
conclusions being handed down.
A new doctrine as to the liabilities of
holders of unpaid stock in an insolvent
| company was established in an opinion
filed by Justice Dixon. The case is that
Of the Cumberland NIL, Lpmper s Gom manns
featuring Company, which came up on
appeal by the stockholders in the defend
ant corporation. The receiver of the Gin
ton Hill Company, Senator ketcham, ap-
piled to the Court of Chancery for an
| order authorizing him to assess, the share
holders for the value of stock held by
| them and on which no subscriptions mad
been paid. The Chancellor made the or
der which the Court of Errors yesterday
set aside.
The Court of Errors holds that the or
der was wrong because it was not based
| on any determination of the amount re-
quired to meet the purpose IN view,
namely. the paying of the defunct COM
: The opinion says: when the business of
a corporation has been abandoned and the
corporation is insolvent. SUBSCRIBERS loa
no further obligation with respect thereto,
thar to pay SO much as what is unpaid
on the stock as will pay the CLAIMS axnsne o.
l u l L &tAo
of winding UP its affairs
The syllabus in the case says: Where
a corporation is insolvent and its BUSINESS
is ended, the subscribers for. or holders
! of its unpaid stock are assessable for only
| so much of what is unpaid on the stock
as will satisfy the claims of corporate
creditors and meet the expense OF Wlnulng
UP its affairs.
San order for such an assessment may
be made by the Court of Chancery in
| fhe suit wherein the corporation was
a%djudged to be insolvent, and when SO
made its propriety cannot be questioned
in suits brought against the stockholders
| for its enforcement.
such an order is he result of an ex-
ercise of judicial power. and therefore
| should be made only after a r~easonaple
opportunity has been afforded to the
o appeal to this court. matters
which do not appea to have been
adiudicated in the court below and
which are not complained of in the
petition of appeal, Will not De cohsiuei-
The Court for the first time decided
yesterday that a telegraph or
company cannot erect poles in the pubic
highway without compromising the aput-
| ting property owner h has a fee IN
the land sought to be used for the erec-
dered in the case of Benjamin Nicholl
against the New York and New Jersey
Telephone Company, a suit which origi-
mated IL Morristown. um hv
The Court. In an opinion written py
Justice Dixon, says that the use of pub
| lie for the erection OF tele,
graph and telephone poles does not
come within the definition of public ease
ment as interpreted in this State.
"Public easement, the opinion says,
"as interpreted in this State is primarily
a right Of passage over the surface OF the
highway and of SO using and occupylns
the land within it as to facilitate suca
massage. In his primary right are IN,
Guided the grading, paving, cleaning ana
fighting of the highway, the construction
and maintenance of street railways with
the apparatus proper for their use and the
maintenance of appliances conducive TO
the protection and convenience OF travel-
ers While using the way
Secondary uses of the street under the
right of public easement the Court de-
fines to. be construction and maintenance
If sewers and water and gas pipes.
In this decision telegraph tel.
phone companies are excluded from the
definition of public use which 1t applies
to street railways and to electric light
companies.
graph and telephone companies can only
acoIlire the right to erect poles through
the power of eminent domain, which IN
wolves a compensating of the owners OF
the AUDITING property.