The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-23
Railroad Asserts It is Not a Nuisance.
CITY AND STATE CONSENTED
That Portion of Lee Street Was
 Never Used as Thoroughfare.
Fseight House of Louisville and Nash
 vine Was constrncted win Consent of City and State
 Has Since Confirmed it.

s1emurrers have been in the City Court of Equity by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and the Mobile and Montgomery Railway Com pany to the petition filed in that court by the State of Alabama. alleging that the obstruction of Lee Street by the Louisville and Nashville freight depot is nuisance and praying the court for an order for its removal.
 The original bill filed by the State averred that the City Council of Mont- gomery had no authority to grant this part of Lee Street to the railroad com pany for it's freight house and that the proceeding, which was afterwards rat filed by the Legislature, was invalid, because of the fact that Lee Street is & public street of Montgomery.
 There are eleven counts to the de- murrers filed by the railroad compa- nies. They aver that the part of Lee Street, occupied by the freight house has never been accepted by the city of Montgomery as a street; that the City Council of Montgomery was au- thorized to grant the privilege of the erection and maintenance of the freight house; that the State of Alabama has Rcuuiesced in that procedure; and that the State of Alabama confirmed the action of the City Council. and that the State of Alabama cannot complain be- cause the Legislature of Alabama rat flied the City Councils action. 1t Is also alleged that the freight house is not an unlawful obstruction of Lee Street.
 The demurrers were as follows:
 "First-Fors that 1t is not averred in said bill that the dedication of said Lee Street was ever accepted by the city of Montgomery, or by any of it's predecessors.
 "Second--For that 1t is not averred that that part of said Lee Street which Is obstructed by the defendants was ever accepted or used by the city of Montgomery, or it's predecessors, or by the public as a street.
 "Third--For that it Is not averred that the City Council of Montgomery was not authorized to alter the said Lee Street in the manner and form un- dertaken by the contract exhibited to said bill of complaint, dater on the goth day of June, 1896.
 'Fourth--For that the said City Council of Montgomery was author ized to alter the said Lee Street in the manner and form undertaken by said contract dated the 20th day of June, 1ss6,- exhibited to said bill
 "Fifth-For that it appears from the said bill of complaint that the State Of Alabama has acquiesced in the ai-
 
 Council of Montgomery, as shown by said contract of June goth, 1Ss6.
 EiSth--For that it appears that the State of Alabama has legalized, ratlnec and confirmed the action of the City Council of Montgomery in the aitera- tion of said Lee Street, as shown by said contract of June goth, 1896.
 "Seventh-For that it does not appear from the said bill that the obstruction of said Lee Street by the defendants is an unlawful obstruction thereof.
 "Eighth-For that the State of Ala bama can not complain of the obstruc' tion of Lee Street by the defendants under said contract with the City Council of Montgomery, said contract having been ratified and confirmed bJ an act of the General Assembly oi Alabama.
 tNinth-For that the State of Ala bama, having, by an act of its Genera Assembly, ratified and confirmed th' contract between the City Council o Montgomery and the defendants, where by the said City Council granted t' the defendants the right and privileg' of obstructing said Lee Street. canno be heard to complain that the actiol of said City Council of Montgomery wa an unlawful alienation of its propert. in said street.
 'Tenth-For that the State of Ala bama, having by an act of its Gen eral Assembly acquiesced in, ratified and confirmed the action of the Cit, Council of Montgomery in the matte of the obstruction of said street. cai not be heard to complain of the ob struction thereof.
 "Eleventh-For that the State 0