Smith v. Del. & A. Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1902 |
| Citation | 64 N.J.E. 770,53 A. 818 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Parties | SMITH v. DELAWARE & A. TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CO. |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Suit by Rufus W. Smith against the Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Company. From a decree advised by the vice chancellor (51 Atl. 464), defendant appeal* Affirmed.
David J. Pancoast, for appellant.
William Early, for respondent.
The bill in this suit was filed for a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of certain wires strung over the sidewalk in front of the premises of complainant without his consent. The bill alleges that the complainant owns in fee simple and is possessed of a certain described tract of land in the borough of Elmer, in the county of Salem, extending to the middle of Main street, and that the defendant, a foreign corporation, without warrant of law or the permission of complainant, and against his written and verbal protest, strung wires, to be used for the defendant's private business and profit, "over the property and pavement of your orator on Main street," and thereby imposed upon complainant's land without compensation a servitude additional to the public easement in the street, and so did complainant irreparable injury. The defendant's answer denies that it has strung wires over the property of the complainant as in the bill alleged; denies that it has no authority or power to do business in the state of New Jersey; denies that it is not doing a public business, and that it has done irreparable damage; and alleges that the grievances complained of are cognizable at law, and prays the same benefit of this defense as if it had demurred.
At the hearing before the vice chancellor the complainant proved title and possession, the stringing of the wires without his consent and against his verbal protest over his sidewalk, within eight feet of his building, and that ringing noises proceed from the wires and disturb him. It was admitted that the defendant is a New York corporation. The complainant further testified that before the wires were strung he wrote and mailed to the defendant a letter forbidding it to string wires over his property. Up to this point there was nothing to connect the defendant with the acts complained of. The complainant's solicitor then testified, without objection, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ingenito
...not objected to is evidential. See Smith v. Delaware & Atl. Tel. & Tel. Co., 63 N.J.Eq. 93, 95, 51 A. 464 (Ch.1902), aff'd 64 N.J.Eq. 770, 53 A. 818 (E. & A.1902); In re Petagno, 24 N.J.Misc. 279, 283-284, 48 A.2d 909 (Ch.1946); C. McCormick, Evidence, § 245 at 584 (2d ed. 1972); Annotation......
-
Bowers v. American Bridge Co., A--512
...Gabriel v. Auf Der Heide-Aragona, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 558, 569, 82 A.2d 644 (App.Div.1951); Smith v. Delaware & Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone Co., 64 N.J.Eq. 770, 772, 53 A. 818 (E. & A.1902). Here the respondent had, as is apparently customary in the industry, made the union local its age......
-
In Re Petagno.
...and given the importance it deserves. Smith v. Delaware & A. Telegraph & Telephone Co., 1902, 63 N.J.Eq. 93, 51 A. 464, affirmed 64 N.J.Eq. 770, 53 A. 818. ‘There was, however, no legal error, because the objection to the first answer went merely to the ground of irrelevancy, and it certain......
-
Kopitnikoff v. Lowenstein Bros., A--11
...519, 16 A.2d 471 (Sup.Ct.1940); Smith v. Delaware & Atl. Tel. & Tel. Co., 63 N.J.Eq. 93, 51 A. 464 (Ch.1902), affirmed 64 N.J.Eq. 770, 53 A. 818 (E. & A.1902). In view of the somewhat different views of the deputy director and the County Court as to the proof which required the award, we ha......