Budd v. Camden Horse Railroad
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill, answer and proofs. The complainants are the owners of, and operators of, a brick-works and yard, with a frontage of two thousand and sizty-six feet on the north side of Ferry avenue, in the city of Oamden, their title running to the middle of the street. The defendants operate a trolley road in that avenue.
Read the full summary
On bill, answer and proofs. The complainants are the owners of, and operators of, a brick-works and yard, with a frontage of two thousand and sizty-six feet on the north side of Ferry avenue, in the city of Oamden, their title running to the middle of the street. The defendants operate a trolley road in that avenue. The complainants allege that Ferry avenue is a public highway but two rods wide; that the defendants have located a number of their poles to carry their wires outside of the lines of the highway, and on the lands of complainants. They further charge that the rails of defendants’…
1Opinion of the Court
Grey, Y. C.
The most important ground of complaint is that the defendants have, without authority, located their tracks on the northerly side of Ferry avenue so that they have intruded upon the sidewalk in front of complainants’ premises, and thereby interfered with their enjoyment of their property. It is not contended that the tracks have been placed outside of the line of the highway, and have intruded upon that portion of the complainants’ lands which is not charged with the public easement. The claim is that the defendants’ tracks, though within the lines of the highway, have been so…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. Mayor of Jersey CitySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
3Cited by4 opinions
- Silk Co. v. . Spinning Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- "Regular Democratic Club" v. TracyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
- People ex rel. Foster v. JusticeNew York Supreme Court · 1913
- Hulett v. Sea GirtNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930