Williams v. Odessa & Middletown Railway Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Injunction Bill.-—■ It is admitted and agreed by and between the complainant and respondent respectively that the statement of facts hereinafter set forth is a true and correct statement thereof, and that for the purposes of argument and the decision of this cause, shall be held and taken to be conclusively proved and established:— First.
Read the full summary
Injunction Bill.-—■ It is admitted and agreed by and between the complainant and respondent respectively that the statement of facts hereinafter set forth is a true and correct statement thereof, and that for the purposes of argument and the decision of this cause, shall be held and taken to be conclusively proved and established:— First. That the complainant, Fanny C. Williams, of St. Georges Hundred, Hew Castle County, and State of Delaware, is seized in fee-simple of a certain lot or tract of land situate in the Town of Middletown, in said hundred, containing about two acres and eighteen…
1Opinion of the Court
*Wolcott, Chancellor.
The question involved is, has the Odessa & Middletown railway (after having a certain route for its proposed road surveyed, and condemnation proceedings instituted and damages assessed for certain lands along said route) the right to abandon this first route, to select another and different route running over a portion of the lands of the complainant, and to institute new condemnation proceedings on such altered route?
The statement of facts agreed upon, so far as it relates to the steps taken by the defendant company in connection with the first route selected for its…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Co. v. NesbitSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Norris v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Schreiber v. Chicago & Evanston RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
- Stacey v. Vermont Central RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Brooklyn Central Rail Road v. Brooklyn City Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1860
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Preseault v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992