Year: 1879

TRENTON, Sept. 23. 1879. ,
Chancellor Runyon fled an opinion here to-day in
q very important railroad case. which gives sub
stautal victory to the New Jersey Central over the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company. completely turn
ing the tables on the latter About month
ago the Central filed bill of much length
with the chancellor. recitng that the Penn
sylyania Company. under the guse of the
National Storage Company. &C.. was about to
construct road from the Pennsylvania road at
the point of rocks Bergen cut across the Cen
tral Railway to the National docks at Communipaw.
and alleging that such action was unlawful. giving
various reasons therefor. which ut the time were
fully published in the HERALD. and winding up by
praying for an injunction to restrain the Pennsyl
vana Company ct al from prosecuting tho work.
Each side was represented by eminent counsel and
the case fully argued In the Chancellors Cham
bers at Newark


The opinion covers forty-seven pages of legal cap
paper and winds up by saying that 'the proceed
ings should be stayed and there should. therefore,
be q preliminary injunction" By it the constitu-
tonality Of the general railroad Law is maintained
and the jurisdiction Of the Court to grant the ree
is upheld. The proceedings Of the National Dock
Railway Company held to be. on their own
showings, a fraud the general railroad law in two
respectsfrst that the enterprise appears to be the
enterprise Of the National Dock Company. which is
seeking. by means Of the organization in the name
of the National Dock Railway Company, to accom-
plish purpose which it could not accomplish di-
recty and next. that the object is private and not
public one.


THE OPINION.


After an exhaustive review or railroad legislation
in the State. special laws relating thereto. the gen.
eral railroad law and Its amendments, the power Of
the Legislature to grant the right of eminent do
main, the necessity for constructing roads, &C.,
and the citation OF humorous authorities on the
subject. tho opinion declares that. eff the improve
v,avfxu nf nuh1i
could be no judicial inquiry to the propriety OF
the action OF the general railroad law in giving
power to condemn lands" &c. The opinion con-


..The compl .inants have valuable franchise under
the charter Of the company. and have right to be
protected in their enjoyment OF it against unauthor
lied competition. The right to build and use rail-
road for public is franchise the right to which
be derived from the State alone Such franchise
Is in its nature, and in the absence of express pro-
vision to the contrary. exclusive. except against
lege which interferes by way Of competition
with the enterprise. and competing road
established without leg lsgis,tiye authority VIII
opinion of the Court in the of the Raritan
and Delaware Bay Railroad Company the Dela-
build railroad for public and to take tolls is
property. the title to which is held from the SOW
vate ownership it must of necessity be under the
protection OF the law Unless it can be shown that
this species OF right is altogether anomalous
in its character, and is under the control
Of exceptional rules. o wrongful invasion of such
right innot but be followed by legal vindcation.
1t seems to me it must be admitted that the rule
Of law opposite to the matter now in hand is on
tirely settled When, therefore, the complainants
obtained from the State the right to establish their
road / think that by the intrinsic force of such
grant such franchise exclusive against all per-
sons but the State. competing road set up with
out Legislative license, is fraud upon such grant.
and Is plain public nuisance.


"It Is obvious that under the operation OF the gen.
corded protect those who legimately enjoy rail-
road franchises. well as property owners. against
the abuse Of the law by those who, under cover of
its provisions, illegtimately seek to avail them
selves of the extraordinary power which it confers.
1t is within province OF this Court grant such
protection.


POWER OF THE COURT.


"It is undoubtedly within the power Of this Court
and it is its duty where an abuse OF the general
Railroad law is attempted by the unlawful appllca
ton or its provisions to private use to restrain the
unauthorized proceedings. On the case as made by
pears to be unlawful A corporation cannot in its
own name subscribe for stock or be corporatOr
under tho general Railroad law Nor it do so by
simulated compliance with the provisions of tho
law through its agents as corporators and
subscribers of stock.


Though five of the corporators of the National
Docks Riilway Company as directors, by their affi
davits appended to the articles OF association
that the amount OF the capital stock required by
law be subscribed and paid in good faith has been
in good faith subscribed and paid in cash to the
directors, and that it is intended in good faith to
construct and to maintain and operate the road,
aud that the whole of the stock (S3O0.O0O has been
subscribed and $4,000 thereof paid in good





Storage Company, by his affidavit put in by the Ma
tional Docks hallway Company swears that the
Storage Company procured the several corporators
and stockholders of the National Docks hallway
Company to organize that company. and that it was
done in the interest of the Storage Company.
which has agreed and expects to advance
out OF its funds ell the
necessary to purchase the right of way and con-
struct the road. OF the seven corporators 1t ap-
pears that the majority are either officers or en-
poyes of the Storage Company. One is its presi-
dent, another its treasurer another an engineer in
ftc h<,nt tEaav, atdap
assistant bookkeeper. The stock is divided into
5000 shares OF 500 each. OF these shares 2.9s2
Comna"v three bv hy the treasurer ''oeS and
pA three BY each each of tho D' three 'eI employees. a
that all the stock except six shares was subscribed
by officers employees of that company. An attempt
by corporation thus to avail itself unlawfully Of
the general Kalroad law to build railroad. will.
complaint of party injured, be enjoined
abuse of the law. But further, though by a supple
ment to its charter power is given 10 the
Storage Company to construct u railroad from
its depots to some point on the New
Jersey Railroad. between the Hudson and Hacken-
sack rivers, and the power of condemnation Is
thereby granted 1t has not avaed itself of the priv
iege thereby conferred perhaps because in cxercis
ing the power of condemnation il might be met
by the objection that the railroad is for private
merely. by the avowal contained in the affidavit of
its presdcnt appears that the projected road which
is to be from its docks to the line of the New Jersey
Railroad Is merely its own private enterprise that the
corporators merely its agents. and that it
IN by this device attempting to do indirectly what it
could not do directly aud to effect by OF the
general law a purely private purpose when it could
not effect under the special authority which the
Legislature attempted to confer upon IL by the sup
ploment of its charter.


'As far as appears the road s designed to answer
public use but merely private one is to be merely
the means by which the Storage Company is to pro-
vide transportation for ITS merchandise from tho
line OF tho New Jersey Railroad ACROSS the Central
Railroad to its depots."


More litigation will follow. as the defeated party
will probably appeal from this decision. aud it looks
as If tho Court of Errors and Appeals will bo called
upon to pass the much vexed question before
there is end to tho controversy. The next scs-
sion of the Legislature win have lively time
the matter. the rival corporations working
hard for tho control Of that body.


CANADAS EXHIBITION.