Opinion
05-24-1897
MAYOR, ETC., OF BOROUGH OF BRIGANTINE v. HOLLAND TRUST CO.
Allen B. Endicott, for complainant. W. B. Williams, for defendant.
Bill by the mayor and common council of the borough of Brigantine against the Holland Trust Company for an injunction. Heardon bill, answer, and replication. Bill dismissed.
Allen B. Endicott, for complainant.
W. B. Williams, for defendant.
EMERY, V. C. This case, as set down for hearing on the bill, answer, and replication, involves the single question of the right of complainant, the borough of Brigantine, to the remedy by injunction to restrain the stringing of wires by defendant over a street within the borough, dedicated to public use. The wires are to be strung 20 feet above the ground, and from poles already erected in the street, across the street, at this height of 20 feet, to the property of defendant abutting on the street The complainant's right is based solely on its right to the general supervision and control of the streets, and on the fact that the stringing of the wires across the street is without its authority. For the reason stated in the case brought by complainant against the same defendant (37 Atl. 438), to compel the removal of water pipes laid under the soil of a street in the borough, we are of opinion that the injury is not one which requires the extraordinary remedy by injunction. There is an additional reason for refusing relief in this case, based on the fact that the defendant, as an abutting owner, would seem to have the right to run electric wires above the street for the purpose of connecting buildings on its property with the wires already on poles in the public streets erected for the purpose of supplying lights. The present bill does not question the right to erect the poles already on the street, or the use of them, and they must, therefore, so far as the record goes, be taken as legally erected, and the only question is as to enjoining the defendant from stringing wires above the street to connect its buildings with the electric wires on the poles. We think such injunction should be refused, and the bill dismissed.