Pa., P. & B. R. Co. v. Trimmer

• Decision Date: 05 March 1895
• Citation: 31 A. 310
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA, P. & B. R. CO. v. TRIMMER.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

31 A. 310

PENNSYLVANIA, P. & B. R. CO.

v. TRIMMER.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

March 5, 1895.

Bill by the Pennsylvania, Poughkeepsie & Boston Railroad Company against Augustus Trimmer. Decree for defendant.

Henry S. Harris, for complainant.

O. H. Beasley, for defendant.

BIRD, V. C. The complainant presents two reasons for coming Into this court for relief: One is that two of the four piers which were constructed in order to complete the viaduct across the Delaware river were built under the mistaken conviction that the defendant did not own the land; the other is license or permission from Trimmer to proceed with the construction of said piers until he should notify the plaintiff to the contrary. I find nothing in the case to justify me in believing that the original company, under which the complainant claims, considered whether Trimmer or any other person was the owner of the land upon which the two piers on the New Jersey side of the center of the river Delaware were erected, or that it had any conviction or belief with respect thereto. There is nothing to show that it made the slightest Inquiry upon this subject. It is true that upon this hearing it produced the deed under which Trimmer claims title to the land adjoining, and demonstrated by an actual survey from that deed that the survey and the boundaries of his land are limited to certain heaps of stone, at points designated in his deed as at low water, or at the water's edge, but there is nothing to show that any Investigation respecting these important facts was undertaken before preparations for the present hearing, or, at most, before 1889, seven years subsequent to the construction of said piers. Therefore, upon the ground of mistake, I think the complainant has failed.

Has the complainant succeeded any better with respect to the allegations of license? I think, when a person excuses what would otherwise be a trespass upon the ground of license, such license should clearly be established. The original company under which the present one claims title entered upon the premises of the defendant with a high hand, and an apparent total disregard of his legal rights. I have searched in vain for some slight evidence of knowledge upon the part of Trimmer of the encroachments upon the part of the company upon his land which he did not object to, and so become bound under the doctrine of acquiescence, but nothing of the kind is disclosed. Nor am I satisfied that there was any direct license or permission given by Trimmer for the erection of these piers, or for any other trespass upon his lands. The most direct and unequivocal testimony upon this point is that of Stanton, who was the superintendent of the Pennsylvania, Slatington & New England Company, which is the company who committed the trespass complained of In 1882. Stanton says that in May or June of that year he was at Columbia, and met Trimmer and Ward, and that the subject-matter was then under discussion between them. He says that, although they did not agree as to what should be done, yet Trimmer told him, in Ward's presence, that he might proceed with the work until he notified him (Stanton) to the contrary. He says that he only saw Trimmer on two occasions, and that he thinks work was begun on the piers then. However, he limits it to the work on the piers in the river, but saying not on the piers on the land of Mr. Trimmer. On this occasion Mr. Ward was present Stanton was asked to state what passed. He says: "Mr. Ward tried to settle with Mr. Trimmer for the right of way, and agree upon the price. They reached no agreement, and Mr. Trimmer said at that time what work must stop, and I said to Mr. Trimmer that, inasmuch as the negotiations were going on, I thought he ought to allow them to go on. He said, after some little hesitation, that he would allow them to go on. Before I left I said, 'Won't you give us in writing when you want us to stop,—won't you write us?' and he said he would do so; he would write me. The work was going on then, working on one of the piers, which Mr. Trimmer knew it was being builded on his land, which he claimed." He says that after this interview he saw Trimmer about the work often. Notwithstanding he had previously said that, at the time of these negotiations, they were only at work on the piers in the river, he subsequently says that, at the time of these negotiations, they were working on Mr. Trimmer's land. He says: "I went with Mr. Ward to see Mr. Trimmer, because Ward thought that I might help with the negotiations." Stanton had heard from Danford that Trimmer was objecting to their proceeding with the work on his land. Having heard this, he says that his object in seeing Trimmer was to procure from him the consent that the work might continue. At this point I think that I ought to observe that these last statements from Stanton show that it was later than May or June when he had this interview with Trimmer. It is perfectly clear from the testimony of Ward, as well as of Trimmer, that Trimmer and Ward did not meet with respect to these negotiations until in harvest time, or after the 4th of July; and that when they did meet, according to all the testimony, considerable work had been done upon the piers on the New Jersey side of the river. Ward went to see Trimmer, and found him in his harvest field. Besides these facts, Stanton, later on in his testimony, says that the company had been doing more or less work all the time previously.

In this very connection I ought also to remark that an effort has been made to prove that Mr. Trimmer was...