Pennsylvania R. Co. v. National Docks & N.J.J.C. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 51 F. 858
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. NATIONAL DOCKS & N.J.J.C. RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 12 July 1892
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

51 F. 858

PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. NATIONAL DOCKS & N.J.J.C. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

July 12, 1892

James B. Vredenburgh, Samuel H. Grey, and Joseph D. Bedle, for complainant.

Dickinson & Thompson, Gilbert Collins, and John R. Emery, for defendant.

ACHESON Circuit Judge.

The court is asked by a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant company from further prosecuting certain condemnation proceedings instituted by it under the general railroad law of the state of New Jersey, and from taking thereunder, or otherwise, any property or lands of the complainant, or constructing upon said property and lands its proposed railroad. On the other hand, the defendant moves the court to dismiss the bill. I have examined the whole case with the care which its importance demands, but I do not deem it necessary at this time to express an opinion upon all the questions which the counsel regard as here involved, and which they have argued so ably. I shall consider the case in a single aspect only. In the state of New Jersey it is authoritatively settled that the supreme court, on certiorari prosecuted by the landowner, bringing up the appointment of commissioners in condemnation proceedings, has the right, by virtue of its general supervisory jurisdiction over all inferior tribunals proceeding in a summary way, to inquire into and determine all questions, whether of fact or law which affect the right of the company seeking the condemnation to take the plaintiff's land. Morris &amp E.R. Co. v. Hudson Tunnel R. Co., 38 N.J.Law, 548. Now long before our equitable jurisdiction was here invoked, the complainant procured the allowance of a writ of certiorari whereby the condemnation proceedings in question were removed into the supreme court of New Jersey; and thereupon reasons were filed in that court by the complainant for setting aside the said proceedings and the order appointing the commissioners, which raised every question affecting the right of the defendant company to appropriate to its uses the complainant's property or lands. Upon an inspection of the record, it is, I think, quite evident that upon those reasons or causes assigned the whole controversy between these parties, so far as the right of appropriation is concerned, was before the state court for adjudication. The supreme court, for reasons expressed in its opinion, set aside the condemnation proceedings, (18 Atl.Rep. 574;) but, upon a writ of error sued out by the defendant company, the court of errors and appeals of the state of New Jersey reversed the judgment of the supreme court, and remitted the record to that court, (21 Atl.Rep. 570,) which ultimately affirmed the order appointing the commissioners. The court of errors and appeals in its opinion declared that one railroad company may...