Truesdale v. Peoria Grape Sugar Co.

Mr. Justice Scott delivered the opinion of the Court: In view of the previous decisions of this court it will not be necessary to enter upon any elaborate discussion of the questions raised on this bill. Private individuals, owning property and carrying on business in the vicinity, seek to enjoin defendants from laying a side-track in the street in front of their own property, to connect with any railroad previously constructed in the street. It is alleged in the bill an ordinance was about to be passed by the city council of Peoria that would authorize defendants to do the acts the. injunction was intended to prevent. Conceding, as the bill does, the ordinance of the city will warrant the action of defendants in constructing a railroad track in the street, it must be considered as definitely settled by the previous decisions of this court that equity will not entertain jurisdiction to restrain the contemplated act. It is not alleged any portion of complainants’ lands will be taken or touched by the proposed railroad track, nor are complainants abutting land owners. Their property is in the vicinity, on the same street, but not adjacent to the proposed improvement. The railroad track is to be constructed on the street, the fee of which, it is conceded, is in the corporation granting the privilege to lay such track. When this hill was filed, the sidetrack was not then constructed. It was to be built under, and in Conformity with, an ordinance of the city council. No direct injury would be done to complainants’ lands, and at .the utmost only consequential damages would be sustained. The nature and extent of such damages could only be ascertained after the completion of the work. It may be, if the ordinance granting the license shall be observed in the construction of the side-track, no serious detriment will result to complainants or others from its construction. But be that .as it may, the track is to be constructed on lands not owned by complainants, and under a license from the only party having lawful authority to grant the privilege, and any expected damages that may be sustained by reason of the proposed work, can only be recovered in an action at law. Equity will not entertain jurisdiction to enjoin the proposed work. The rule of law on this subject is so well settled by previous decisions of this court, it is not deemed necessary to discuss it again as a new question. The following cases contain a full expression of the views of the court on the questions discussed by counsel in this ease: Stetson v. Chicago and Evanston R. R. Co. 75 Ill. 74; Pattersons. Chicago, Danville and Vincennes R. R. Co. 75 id. 588; Peoria and Rock Island Ry. Co. v. Schertz, 84 id. 135; Cairo and Vincennes R. R. Co. v. The People, 92 id. 170. The judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.