Answers Of The Ann Arbor

ANSWERS OF THE ANN ARBOR

To Two Injunction Cases Have Been Filed

CLAIM ORDINANCE LEGAL

And That First Street Can Be Diverted Without Damages Without Being Paid Except for Property Taken

The Ann Arbor Railroad by its attorneys, A. J. Sawyer & Son, has filed its answers to the bills of Dean & Co., and of the Ann Arbor Fruit & Vinegar Co., seeking to restrain grade separation.

In the case of Dean & Co., Mr. Sawyer, for the road, denies that the building of the proposed embankment would prevent Dean & Co. from having access to their land, but even if such should be the case that they would have no redress; that Dean & Co., had no personal or individual interest in First street. It is stated that it is the purpose of the council to divert First street and the claim is made that they have a right under the charter to do so. It is also claimed that the ordinance under which action is taken is a legal and binding one, nine votes being all that were needed to pass it; that since the passage of the bill, the road had made contracts for steel bridges to construct five viaducts at a cost of from $25,000 to 30,000 each and had incurred other large incidental expenses amounting to $35,000 to $50,000.

The claim is made that the city does not have to pay damages in diverting a street, but the charter provisions the plaintiffs refer to apply only to obtaining a right of way for opening a street over private property and that no provision is made in the charter for paying damages for vacating a street. 

The bill states that if the plaintiffs should sustain any damage, it is the fault of their location and they cannot defeat necessary public improvements.

In answer to the bill of the Ann Arbor Fruit & Vinegar Co., the railroad, through its attorney, denies that the complainant owns a right of way across their tracks. It denies that any rights have been obtained by adverse possession. 

The road says that it is its purpose to construct a side-track from Huron street to William, along the east side of their right of way, to afford all the accommodation needed to places of businesses between Huron and William streets.

The answer claims that the way of reaching the Fruit & Vinegar works has always been by way of Washington street, south and easterly to their works and that when the embankment is constructed the complainant can still reach its works by the same way of Washington street that it always has used and occupied.