45 S.E. 149 (S.C. 1903), Riley v. Charleston Union Station Co.
| Date | 10 July 1903 |
| Citation | 45 S.E. 149,67 S.C. 84 |
| Docket Number | . |
| Parties | RILEY et al. v. CHARLESTON UNION STATION CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Page 149
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Watts, Judge.
Action by Ann Riley and John F. Riley against the Charleston Union Station Company. From an order dissolving a temporary injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
Page 150
The following is the complaint:
"That plaintiffs above named, complaining of the defendant above named, allege:
(1) That the plaintiffs, Ann Riley and John F. Riley, are each of them citizens of the state of South Carolina and of the United States, and residents of the city of Charleston, state of South Carolina.
(2) That the defendant, Charleston Union Station Company, claims to be a corporation created by and under an act of the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina approved 20th February, 1902, set forth in full at pages 1168, 1169, and 1170 of the twenty-third volume of the Statutes at Large of the state of South Carolina, reference to which is prayed in full as often as may be necessary.
(3) That the plaintiff Ann Riley, widow, is the owner [67 S.C. 85] in fee simple of all that piece or parcel of land, with residences and buildings thereon, situate, lying and being on the south side of Reid street, in the city of Charleston, state of South Carolina, measuring and containing in front on Reid street 165 feet, same on South street, by 200 feet in depth on the east and west lines, butting and bounding to the north on Reid street, to the south on South street, to the east on Bay street, and to the west on land of M. Quinlivan. That the said plaintiff Ann Riley, widow, has her home and residence on that part of the said lot (being the northeast corner of Reid and Bay streets) where she has lived for over twenty years, and now, as widow, occupies as her home, and that she has leased a portion of the said lot (being at the southeast corner of Bay street and South street) to plaintiff John F. Riley, on which he has erected large machine shops, iron foundry, and boiler works, from which she has received and is receiving large rental; said lot being most favorably situated for such business by reason of its advantageous central location.
(4) That the plaintiff John F. Riley is lessee of a portion of said lot on the southeast corner of Bay and South streets, whereon he has erected large machine shops and boiler works and iron foundry, and wherein he has established and for many years conducted, and now conducts, business as a machinist, boiler maker, and iron foundry-man, and same has been, and now is, in full and active operation, employing a large force of skilled workmen, and being one of the largest ironworks in the city of Charleston.
(5) And that the said John F. Riley has also located and established large and extensive ironworks and plants and machinery permanently in said shops, and has been, and is now, in large manufacturing operations, and filling large business orders, and said lease and said machine shops, iron foundry, and boiler works are of great value, because of the central business stand and location, and by reason of the long establishment of over nineteen years of the said works at such place, and also because of the advantageous location in [67 S.C. 86] terminal facilities for such business, and the same is absolutely necessary to the said plaintiff John F. Riley for the future successful conduct of his trade and business and industries.
(6) That the defendant, the Charleston Union Station Company, claiming to be incorporated by and under authority of the said act of the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina approved 20th February, 1902, proceeding under and by authority of the said act, caused to be served upon each of the plaintiffs on the 12th day of February, 1903, a notice in condemnation on the said property, copy of which is hereto annexed, marked 'Exhibit A,' reference to which is prayed, and in and by which notice said defendant claims that it 'is authorized to acquire by condemnation land or easements therein for the purposes of its incorporation, and for the construction of the tracks necessary and incident thereto,' and for the purpose of said defendant a right of way over the said land of plaintiff, situated in the city of Charleston, is required, and the right of way so required is delineated on the plat of the same, annexed to the notice as part thereof, marked 'Exhibit A,' which shows twelve tracks and turntables upon said lot of land, and four tracks passing through the residence and home of the plaintiff Ann Riley, and four tracks and turntables passing through the machine shops, boiler works, and iron foundry of plaintiff John F. Riley, to the complete destruction of said house, machine shops, boiler works, and iron foundry.
(7) That in and by said notice said defendant has further notified said plaintiffs 'that, unless within thirty days of the service thereof upon you, you shall, in writing, duly signify your refusal, the said Charleston Union Station Company will presume that your consent has been given, and shall enter upon and take and hold said right of way, according to the provision of the said statutes aforesaid. In case of your refusing or remaining silent, the said Charleston Union Station Company will proceed to have a jury impaneled to ascertain the [67 S.C. 87] amount which shall be paid you as just compensation for the right of way required as aforesaid.'
(8) Plaintiffs further allege that on the 12th day of March, 1903, previous to the commencement of this action, these plaintiffs have served on the defendant a notice of their refusal of consent of entry upon or condemnation of said lands or right of way thereon by said defendant company, a copy of which notice is hereto annexed, as 'Exhibit B.'
(9) And plaintiffs further allege that the
Page 151
said defendant, claiming to act under the said act of the General Assembly as aforesaid, intends to proceed to condemn the said rights of way in said land, and to enter upon and occupy the same without the consent and against the will of the plaintiffs, the owner and lessee thereof, now in possession and use of the same, and to prevent the plaintiff Ann Riley, widow, from further use and occupation of her home, with its associations for many years, in great violence to her feelings, and to the destruction of the established and prosperous trade and industry and business aforesaid of John F. Riley, lessee, to the great, grievous, and irreparable wrong and injury of the said plaintiffs.
(10) The plaintiffs further allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial