
    Edward B. Hollinshead, appellant, v. Atlantic City Railroad Company, respondent.
    [Decided October 20th, 1924.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, who filed the following opinion:
    
      “I am satisfied that this suit-is controlled by the same principles as Coombs v. Atlantic City Railroad Co., in which latter case I have recently filed an opinion to the effect that this court, should not grant relief based on the legal rights in land which are claimed by the bill until such rights shall have been established at law. I am unable to discern that the contract between the predecessor in title of complainant herein and defendant's predecessor in title touching the lane, railway station and siding, or the circumstance that complainant herein owns land on either side of and adjacent to the railroad right of way, in any way removes the fundamental objection that the purely legal rights in land asserted by complainant herein are doubtful and unsettled in this state, and that the injury threatened is not irreparable in its nature.
    “I will advise an order sustaining the motion against the bill.”
    
      Messrs. Bleakly, Siockwell & Burling, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. French & Richards, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in' the court below by Vice-Chancellor Learning.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Teen chard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays—15.

For reversal—None.  