Neither Side Victorious

iiii Monday, Judge Kinne íiled ttiis opiuiou in tlio appllcation oí Mrs. RaUensberger, et al. for an injunction againgt tlhe Aim Arbor Street Railüvay ('o. Tüie caso was brought to a-estrain tlhe eompany írom operating the Paekard street line, aud on thc hearing of the arguroents eonie time jigo, ,the judge .sTinimiiaril.v re-íused to grant the injunction. The judge' heard t'he prooïs in the case duriug the past two weeks, aad cvidently has changed 'his miad tx eome extent but not enougli to grant the iujimction, 'and tile case will íiow gio to the supreme court for decisión. Judge Kinne's opinión in til e case is given Ix'low: The Circuit Court 'for tltc Cnuntti oí W'ashtenaw, in Chancery, Elizabeth A. ilaffensboigrer, et al, vs. The Aun Arbor Street Kaihvay Co. An applicatiüii for a preliminary nju'netion in thLs matter was lieard in l'ebruary, 1891. Tlhe opinión oí this Court at tihat time waa íiled and is uijw of public record. At t'hat time, tío declelon (liad been made by our bupremc court, toudiing the precise question iinvolved in this issue, and I ireached my conclusión in deterence to ,the authoritice of other states, then preseaited, and reíused the injunction. i Sincc tliat time two cases have been dftided by the Supremo Court oí thiá (State. i In Nicholja vs. The Aun Arbor uul ypsllantl K. V. Co., 87 MicJi., page 869, Judge Long, who delivered the controlling opinión of the couirt, eays "It waa hLld ín Detroit City By. vs. Mills. 85 Micto., Ö34, tliat an ortUnary street a-ailway is not an additioiial bmrden or servitude, where tlie fee of the street is in the abutting owner, and thore ia almost a concensus oí judicial opinión in this direction." He further says: "It was also ht'ld in that caae, by tiiis couirt, that the uee of elecbricity as a motor power, ddd not créate, an additional servitude w. burdem upom the lands of tJie abutting; owners." ' . Xt seems to me that I am .ïot justiifioil i:i ajtiiii? adversely tu t'.ii.s oplnjo-n as espressed by Judge lonj;. it Is true tliat the -e we e d s entl ig opinSons, but I deern it the duly of UuCircuit Judgee to ïullow the oplnlou oí the Court as declared by Judge .Lang, uulil a different view shall be ;tnittun-:l by a mojority o! that BeiieJi. I niiiy.,s i j a ínodíficatiou ol iu w W3 fcln:e thij conto vesy i 81 aios . '1 ",ii. uil ipresentatiwn o) Mie case, np .11 t , ■mi-riis. a: ui ii move mature reïlectiou, ba.s created doubt.s whicli didmot. prevloosly exist. it is possible that the compliiiiiaiits In tuis case have exaggerated the damages wiiich they claim to have sufferod l).v reason of the existoncé oi tiiis Electric Ruihvay, and t.luit in time tlicir vlftWS this sy.steir. oí rallway wlll chango and that pvoperty will not ultiinat i-l.v suiler any serlous injury by lts maintenp.poe, yet I oamaot reedst th conclusión t-hat it is unjust tii.it they alone should bcar the burden, whether t 'be ligJit ar heavy, of tlio existence oí a Corporation, creatod for private benefits, ttucmgb meeting a public neceesity. It tras the appearance oí a hardship which the law perhapg ooght mot to sanction. It would Beein to jbe iiothing .more Miau lalr and evenbanded Jugtice that the questipu of the existencc of these alleged injuries and th.eir extent shüuld be submiti d to a proper tribunal and the burilen oí tüiem, if any exist, cast upon the corporatiO'ii whdch reáps the benc.it. 1 e mothtag in t'h eoii.se which calla for any Interterence unless upon the principies to rwhich 1 have already adverted. The route seeins to have been wlsely eelected and the road constructed unte the diircictioa and supervisión oí the local municipal authoritir.s. In view ,of the faöt that counsel for complahiant8 insist that the law of tliis state upon this subject is not settled, I ani disposed to dismiss thds bill without prejudioe to tfliei rights ol the coraplahiiants at lalw, as they nwi.v Je advlsed, and without coste to either party as against the otlier. A doeree ma.y be entered Ifflgly. Jan. 11, 1892. Circuit