|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPTON v. THE SUSQUEHANNA RAIL ROAD. 387
defendant Winchester was the president of the company; that the
defendant McNeill was their principal engineer; and that the other
defendants were their agents; that the company had, under autho-
rity of the act of 1827, ch. 72, by which they were incorporated,
located their rail road over the land of the plaintiff; and were pro-
ceeding to construct it as alleged; that in repeated conversations
with the plaintiff, he was assured that he should have a Jury con-
vened to assess the damages done to his land, 'whenever he thought
proper; but his demands were so extravagant, that the company
could come to no agreement with him, in consequence of which a
jury was summoned and an inquisition taken in the manner pre-
scribed by the act of incorporation; upon which the jury deter-
mined that the plaintiff would sustain no damage whatever by the
rail road passing over his land; that at the place where the plain-
tiff's way, spoken of in his bill, passed over the route of the rail
road, it became necessary to make a perpendicular cut of many
feet, and the greater part through solid rock; and consequently,
his right of way was turned in another direction, equally conve-
nient, over the route of the rail road; that the inquisition was not
withheld at the instance of these defendants; but was, in feet, re-
turned within a -very short time after it was taken, and to the then
next session of the County Court; and the hearing of the plain-
tiff's exceptions to it was necessarily, and only postponed to the
next term, because he refused to consent to the fixing of a day in
that term for the hearing; that there had been no procrastination
at the instance of the company in the taking or returning of the
inquisition, or of the hearing of the exceptions to it; that the
warrant for the taking of it had been issued by a justice of the
peace; and it had been, in all respects, regularly and legally exe-
cuted, with full notice, and in the presence of the plaintiff and his
solicitor, who was fully heard by the jury.
The defendants after filing their answer gave notice of a motion
to dissolve the injunction as allowed by the order of the 17th
of May.
4th June, 1831,—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing on the motion to dissolve the injunction, and
the solicitors of the parties having been fully heard, the proceed-
ings were read and considered.
The act of Assembly by which this company have been incor-
porated, authorized them to construct a rail road from the city of
Baltimore to the river Susquehanna; and, for the purpose of exe-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
