The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-09-17
OPINIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT {: U..|
Decisions Of That Body, Rendered.
at Stanton This Week,
Summarized.
THE COMMISSION REVERSED
Case Where Railroad May Not
Condemn Land--The South
and Western Railroad.
Especial to The Times Dispatcl.)

Z =
sTAuNToN, VA. September 16.-Wth
one exception tho thirteen opinions
handed down at Stanton on Thursday
last were III cases originating in South
west Virginia, and all were argued be-
fore the court while IN session at Wythc-
vile In June.
The one cnse constituting the exception
was that of the Great Falls Power COM
pany VS.. Great Falls and Old Dominion
Railroad Company, an appeal from an
order entered by the State Corporation
Commission granting the railroad COM
spany permssid,l TO condemn certain par
cells OF land owned BY the power COM
rnny, which was desired by the railroad
= company MS aaterminal for tho railroad
it#is constructing from the Aqueduct
Bridge at Washington To the Great Fans
Of the Potomac, In Fairfax county.
Commission Reversed.
The opinion Of the court, written by
Judge Harrison, reverses the Judgment
OF the Corporation Commission. Under
their charters both of tho companies have
the power Of eminent domain, and It IS
shown that under the statute 1t must
IN such a cnse that a public necessity
\ or that an essential public convenience
requires that the land shall be taken;
ana that the land Is not essential to the.
& nnrnosos of the corporation from which
& II Is to be taken
The court is Of opinion that it clearly
appears that the land Is sought by the
railroad company as terminal polht on
account OF the rare scenic features u
affords, and because of the attractions y
would hold out to pleasure seekers from
Washington, and but for the beauty OF
the scene would most likely have been
avoided as offering no inducements 70
such an enterprise; that more lano IS
sought to be condemned than is neces-
snry for mere terminal purposes, ana
thut 1t Is manifest that the locatlon was
Selected with no reference to the pupnc
use OF the road in the matter OF freight Gig
Or the accommodation of the travelling
1,,h,,c along its route, but for the pur-
nose Of establishing a park overlooking
Tho Great Falls of the Potomac, The
charter OF the company, It Is said, SHOWS
that The company was organized Tor
public use In transporting persons and
property along It's line, and furnishes no
warrant FOR condcmnlng propertyEfor the
purpose indicated by the record.
A Stronger Case.
4 case decided in New York is cited, In
which . railroad company was denied
the right to condemn private property
Tor the purpose, of enabling passengers
10 obtaia3&a fe.ew of sfthe WHIRLPOOL
RaplGs''tof Niagara, upon the ground that
It vas not such public use as would
justify condemnation proceedings. ne
present case is CONSIDERED by the court
n:,,ch stronger than that, because lie
Virginia statute requires not merely q
public use, but 4 public necessity.
The court holds that while 1t may be
desirable to furnish sightseers with an
opportunity TO spend pleasant DAY
amid wild and rugged surroundings on
the banks OF the Potomac. viewing Its
Great Falls while strollng in a beau
tiful park, yet it cannot be said to be a
public necessity, demanding the displace-
ment of the power company from It's pri-
vate ownership BY compulsory proceed
ings.
The Corporation Commission s held to
have erred in awarding the certificate per-
Knitting the condemnation, and Its action
Is, therefore, reversed, It's order set aside.
and the petition of the railroad company
dismissed. & j.
South and Western Road.
Another case decided involving large
interests was that of South and Western
Railway Company VS.. Commonwealt h
from the Corporation Court OF the City
OF Bristol This was quo warranio
proceeding Instituted Mt the relation OF
private individuals, and In 1t the South
and Western Railway Company Wns ad-
Judged TO have forfeited oil It's rights,
privileges and franchises as corporation
in Virginia, because Of its failure to COM
plese thirty miles OF It's road IN Virginia
within the time required by its charter.
The Supreme Court, speaking through
Judge Buchanan, decides that the Corpo-
ration Court did not have Jurisdiction OF
the cuse, fcvcrses Its judgment and dis
misses the petition of the REALTORS.
The decision OF the case turned upon
The construction OF conflicting statutes
OF the Code. The opinion sets forth that
under the general provisions OF tho Code