Opinion
Decided January 3d 1941.
Complainant's right to cross defendant's tracks cannot, under the facts of this case, arise out of its ownership of the land covered by the tracks but must be based on some contract to which defendant or one of its predecessors was a party. Under the terms of the agreement between the parties which is determinative of the issues raised herein, complainant has no right to cross the defendant's two sidings in question, or to use jointly a certain siding built by defendant.
On appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Fielder, who filed the following opinion:
"The complainants (hereinafter called Junction) and the defendants (hereinafter called Erie) operate adjoining parallel railroad lines each having two main tracks, between Jersey City and Weehawken through Hoboken. The two most westerly tracks are north and south-bound tracks of Junction and the two next easterly tracks are north and south-bound tracks of Erie. Junction claims the right to run side tracks from its easterly track to industries located east of the Erie tracks and for that purpose to build necessary crossing and switches across the Erie tracks; also to use in common with Erie, a switch or siding which connects with another Erie track north of Thirteenth street, Hoboken, running to the plant of Cornell Underhill. Erie's denial of such claimed rights produces the controversy in this case.
"Hoboken Land Improvement Co. (hereinafter called Hoboken Co.) owned a strip of land extending from Jersey City through Hoboken to Weehawken, on which in 1867 it constructed Weehawken Branch Railroad, which was a single track road and so remained until 1881, when Docks Co. (predecessor of Erie) under rights acquired from Hoboken Co. laid on said strip two tracks parallel with the track of Weehawken Branch Railroad extending from Thirteenth street, Hoboken, northerly to Weehawken.
"By deed dated March 1st, 1886, made by Hoboken Co. to Adams, and by deed from Adams to Junction dated March 18th, 1886, the Weehawken Branch Railroad including its right-of-way from Jersey City to Weehawken, and also all land on which said railroad was built, were conveyed to Junction subject to certain easements, rights and privileges theretofore granted to Erie and others.
"Pursuant to agreements dated March 23d 1886, and July 29th, 1886, between Junction and Erie, the former double-tracked the Weehawken Branch Railroad from Jersey City to Weehawken. Said agreements provided that should it be necessary for Junction in order to construct its double track, to take any side tracks belonging to Erie laid on property of Weehawken Branch Railroad, it would make good such changes either by restoring the side tracks or making compensation therefor. By the second of said agreements Junction Co. leased to Erie, for the period of Junction's charter, the exclusive use free from any claim or interruption by Junction of an independent single track east of the main tracks of Junction and parallel therewith, extending from Jersey City to Weehawken, and Junction agreed to build and maintain the same. Junction also agreed to rebuild for Erie on the east side of said independent track as many additional tracks or sidings as were then owned and exclusively used by Erie west of Junction's main track. Under those two agreements Junction constructed a track parallel with its main track and to the west thereof, thus creating a double track railroad for Junction between Jersey City and Weehawken. It also constructed and leased to Erie a single through track immediately east of said main track extending from Jersey City to Weehawken, which is the independent track mentioned in the agreements. When Junction constructed its second main track and the Erie independent track, it built for Erie two sidings east of said independent track and parallel thereto, north of Thirteenth street, Hoboken, which sidings were designated Erie sidings Nos. 1 and 2. Those two sidings were built by Junction pursuant to the 1886 agreements to replace other tracks or sidings laid and owned by Erie or its predecessors under prior agreements made between them and Hoboken Co., which other tracks or sidings had been moved or removed in double-tracking Junction's railroad and in building the independent track for Erie.
"Prior as well as after 1886 several other agreements had been entered into between Junction and Erie or their predecessors, the terms of which it is unnecessary to state here, and on July 1st, 1891, the two corporations entered into another agreement which contains provisions on which the issues in this suit may be determined. It recites that several agreements had theretofore been entered into between them or their predecessors, and that it was desirable that the relations between the parties should be modified and that the existing contracts should be consolidated in such manner that the rights of the parties, as then existing, should not be changed except as in said agreement stated. It confirms to Erie, free from any claim or interruption of Junction, the exclusive right to and use of the independent track owned by Junction but leased to and used by Erie. It provides that Junction will construct and lease to Erie, in the same manner as said independent track, a second track for Erie's exclusive use east of the independent track, which with the independent track will form a continuous double track railroad between Jersey City and the switch at the southerly termination of Erie's siding at Thirteenth street, Hoboken (which was Erie's siding No. 1). The agreement contains provisions from which I shall quote hereinafter, concerning Junction's right to cross Erie tracks and as to joint use by the two railroads of sidings to or connections with industries east of Erie tracks.
"The present tract situation pursuant to the two agreements of 1886 and the agreement of 1891 now is that north of Thirteenth street, Hoboken, there are five parallel tracks, the most westerly two being Junction north and south-bound main tracks, and next easterly thereof, in the order named, are the first Erie independent track used as its south-bound main track, siding No. 1 with which Erie's second independent track connects to form Erie's north-bound main track, and siding No. 2 which starts from a point in the most easterly Erie track (formerly siding No. 1) north of Fifteenth street, Hoboken, and runs south along Madison avenue to Cornell Underhill plant. South of Thirteenth street there are four parallel tracks, the two most westerly being the Junction north and south-bound tracks and the most easterly being the Erie north and south-bound tracks; the most easterly of the latter two being Erie's second independent track.
"Junction claims to be the owner in fee of the strip of land on which its tracks and those of Erie are laid and also of so much of said strip as lies east of Erie tracks, and that as such owner it has the right to cross Erie tracks to gain access to its unoccupied land and to industrial plants east thereof. It bases its contention as to ownership on grants and contracts made between its predecessors and the former owner, Hoboken Co., and claims that Erie's right to use its (Erie's) tracks is merely for the purpose of operating trains thereon. It points to the original right given an Erie predecessor by agreement of 1881, which was to lay tracks in places not interfering or to interfere with tracks laid or to be laid by Hoboken Co., its successors or assigns, and to the fact that in the agreements under which Erie claims, the rights granted Erie were to be compensated for by annual payments of tolls or trackage charges, as indicating that such agreements granted no title in fee to the land on which Erie's tracks are laid.
"Even if Junction has record title to the land on which Erie's tracks are laid such title is subject to Erie's use of the land. Erie and its predecessors have been in possession of sidings Nos. 1 and 2 ever since they were constructed for them under the 1886 agreement and Erie claims ownership thereof. It also was given the right by Junction to exclusive use of its first independent track (which extends north and south of Thirteenth street, Hoboken) without interruption or interference by Junction. Therefore Junction's right to cross Erie's tracks cannot arise out of its ownership of land covered by Erie's tracks but must be based on some contract to which Erie or one of its predecessors was a party and, as I have said, the agreement of 1891 contains the provisions to which reference must be made. Erie concedes that under that agreement Junction was given the right to cross Erie's tracks south of Thirteenth street, to serve jointly with Erie those industries established east thereof but Erie denies Junction's right to cross (for a similar purpose) its siding No. 1 which at Thirteenth street connects with its second independent track and it also denies Junction's right to cross its siding No. 2, both sidings being north of Thirteenth street. In other words, Erie contends that the crossing provisions of the 1891 agreement were intended to apply to its tracks south of Thirteenth street only.
"Prior to 1891 Junction had no easterly crossing rights over Erie's tracks and there was nothing in any previous agreement in that respect to be changed or modified by the agreement of 1891. That agreement was an original contract on the subject. It speaks of Erie's exclusive right to the use of its first independent track and provides for leasing by Junction to Erie of exclusive use of the second independent track to be constructed east of the first one, northerly from Jersey City to Erie's siding No. 1 at Thirteenth street. The crossing rights now claimed by Junction are based on the provision contained in that agreement on the part of Erie, that Junction `shall have at any time to construct side tracks or connecting tracks * * * directly across the track or tracks exclusively leased to Erie, to any industries or railway connections on the east side of said leased track or tracks.' Thus Junction's right of crossing was limited to a track or tracks exclusively leased by Junction to Erie and does not include Erie sidings Nos. 1 and 2 which were not leased from Junction but were constructed by Junction for Erie to replace former sidings owned by Erie. It seems to me that the quoted words are peculiarly applicable to the two Erie exclusively-leased tracks south of Thirteenth street and that the intent of the 1891 agreement was to grant to Junction crossing rights south of Thirteenth street and not the right to cross Erie's single independent leased track and its two sidings north of Thirteenth street. I am of the opinion that although the quoted words granting Junction crossing rights might be held broad enough to give it the right to cross Erie's single independent track north of Thirteenth street, their meaning cannot be extended to include the further right to cross Erie's sidings Nos. 1 and 2.
"In 1930 or 1931 Erie constructed a side track from its siding No. 2 at a point between Fifteenth and Sixteenth streets, Hoboken, easterly to Cornell Underhill plant, which track Erie uses for freight transportation to and from that plant. Junction claims the right to have joint use of that siding by constructing crossing tracks and switches over the Erie first independent track and siding No. 1 and bases such claim on the agreement of 1891 which provides that Erie agrees `that in case it shall at any time have constructed from the tracks exclusively leased to it by Junction Co., any sidings or connections to other railways or industries upon the east side of such tracks, the Junction Co. shall * * * have the right to build such crossings and switches as are necessary to make connection with the same and have an equal right to the joint use or occupancy of the same with Erie Co.' The Cornell Underhill siding is not constructed from any track exclusively leased to Erie by Junction Co. but is constructed from siding No. 2 which is owned by Erie under agreements coming down from Hoboken Co., as reconstructed by Junction for Erie under one of the 1886 agreements; therefore I am of the opinion that Junction Co. did not acquire under the 1891 agreement any right to cross Erie's independent track and siding No. 1 so as to make connection with siding No. 2 to reach the Cornell Underhill plant."
Messrs. Wall, Haight, Carey Hartpence, for the appellants.
Messrs. Collins Corbin, for the respondents.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Vice-Chancellor Fielder in the Court of Chancery.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.