Pa. R. Co. v. Angel and Wife

• Decision Date: 31 March 1886
• Citation: 41 N.J.E. 316,7 A. 432
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. ANGEL and Wife.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

7 A. 432

41 N.J.E. 316

PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

v. ANGEL and Wife.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March Term, 1886.

On appeal from chancery.

P. L. Voorhees, for appellants.

J. W. Wartman and J. J. Crandall, for respondents.

DIXON, J. The complainants are owners and occupants of a dwelling-house on the southerly side of Bridge avenue, between Second and Third streets, in the city of Camden. The defendant's tracks run through the central part of Bridge avenue, in front of complainants' dwelling, across Second street, into its terminal yard, which extends from the westerly side of Second street to the Delaware river. The bill avers that the defendant uses its tracks in front of the complainants' house for the purpose of distributing cars and making up trains in its freight and passenger business, and that it keeps locomotives and cars laden with live-stock standing there, so that, by reason of the stenches, noises, smoke, steam, and dirt thereby occasioned, the comfort of the complainants' home is seriously impaired; and hence they pray an injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing in that course of conduct. The answer denies that the defendant uses its tracks in front of complainants' dwelling for the purpose of distributing cars and making up trains, and as a siding for cars, loaded with live-stock or otherwise, and, generally, alleges that said tracks are used only in such modes as the proper transaction of its business necessitates.

The evidence is clear that the tracks mentioned are continually used in the manner set out in the bill. The defendant's train-master, at Camden, testifying for the company, states that the company uses Bridge avenue above Second street considerably for the purpose of drilling, and that he could not transact the company's business without doing so; that he is not in the habit of permitting cars loaded with cattle, sheep, and swine to remain upon the track between Second and Third streets longer than he must, before getting them down into the yard after they come into the street. These occurrences take place at various hours of the day, and up to 11 o'clock at night; ordinarily, he says, not later than that time. The proofs presented by the complainants, and not controverted on behalf of the defendant, establish that the use of the tracks thus admitted results in the nuisances of which complaint is made. The fact that these nuisances are continuous, and materially diminish the comfort of complainants in their residence, makes the case one proper for an equitable remedy by injunction, unless the defendant can justify its conduct. Ross v. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq. 294, and cases there cited.

The defendant's justification was rested, at the argument, upon the ground that the legislature and the common council of Camden had authorized the defendant to use Bridge avenue for its business, that its business requires such use as the defendant has hitherto made, and therefore the use cannot be, in a legal sense, injurious. There are two sufficient answers to this claim.

The first is that neither the legislature nor the common council has attempted to grant so extensive a privilege as is here set up. The charter of the Camden & Amboy Railroad Company, passed February 4, 1830, authorized it to construct and operate a railroad, with all necessary appendages, within limits embracing the locality now under consideration. In 1834 the Camden common council, by resolution, authorized that company to use Bridge avenue for the purposes of its roadway. In 1855 the legislature (P. L. 1855, p. 118; Revision, p. 919, § 65) authorized railroad companies, whose incorporating acts limited the quantity of land which they might hold at their stations, to purchase and hold so much land as might be strictly necessary for most conveniently storing and working upon their engines, cars, fuel, and materials to be used on their roads, and for receiving and delivering property transported on their roads to the best advantage, and for tracks, wagon-roads, platforms, and all other strictly station and railroad purposes. In 1862 the city council, by "an ordinance to afford facilities to the Camden & Amboy Railroad Company for the running of their trains through the city of Camden," gave its consent and authority to the company to lay side tracks, running obliquely from a point on the railroad, along Bridge avenue, between Second and Third streets, to and upon the company's depot property lying west of Second street. From these laws and regulations arise whatever rights the defendant, which is the lessee of the Camden & Amboy Railroad Company, appears to have in Bridge avenue, in front of complainants' house. In our judgment, they indicate that those rights are such as pertain to the use of the avenue for the purposes of a way, not for the purposes of a station-yard. The primary privilege given is...