text:
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) .../...
 af 23.10.2020
 om strukturen og de nærmere regler for oversigten over de kilder og metoder, der anvendes til at udarbejde bruttonationalindkomstaggregaterne og deres bestanddele i overensstemmelse med det europæiske national- og regionalregnskabssystem (ENS 2010)
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) 2019/516 af 19. marts 2019 om harmonisering af bruttonationalindkomsten i markedspriser og om ophævelse af Rådets direktiv 89/130/EØF, Euratom og Rådets forordning (EF, Euratom) nr. 1287/2003 (BNI-forordningen)
 1
 , særlig artikel 3, stik. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)I henhold til artikel 3, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2019/516 skal medlemsstaterne forelægge Kommissionen (Eurostat) en oversigt over de kilder og metoder, der skal anvendes til at udarbejde bruttonationalindkomstaggregaterne (BNI-aggregaterne) og deres bestanddele.
 (2)Det er afgørende, at BNI-aggregaterne og deres bestanddele er sammenlignelige på tværs af medlemsstaterne, og at en oversigt over de kilder og metoder, der anvendes til at udarbejde BNI-aggregaterne og deres bestanddele, er i overensstemmelse med de relevante definitioner og regnskabsregler i ENS 2010
 2
 .
 (3)Det er afgørende, at oversigterne over de kilder og metoder, der anvendes til at udarbejde BNI-aggregater og deres bestanddele, dokumenteres og opdateres regelmæssigt af medlemsstaterne.
 (4)For nemmere at kunne lave sammenlignelige analyser bør BNI-oversigterne følge en fælles struktur, der består af et på forhånd fastlagt antal kapitler og procestabeller med talmæssige skøn for referenceåret.
 (5)For at kontrollere kilderne og brugen heraf samt de metoder, der bruges til at udarbejde BNI-aggregaterne og deres bestanddele, bør medlemsstaterne forelægge Kommissionen (Eurostat) den seneste version af BNI-oversigterne i overensstemmelse med en aftalt tidsplan.
 (6)Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Udvalget for det Europæiske Statistiske System —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Struktur for oversigten
 1.Medlemsstaterne fastlægger en oversigt over de kilder og metoder, der anvendes til at udarbejde BNI-aggregaterne og deres bestanddele (BNI-oversigt). BNI-oversigten skal bestå af 10 kapitler og BNI-procestabellerne.
 2.Kapitlerne skal være som følger:
 –Kapitel 1: Oversigt over national- og regionalregnskabssystemet
 –Kapitel 2: Revisionspolitikken og tidsplanen for revision og færdiggørelse af skønnene. Større revisioner siden den sidste udgave af BNI-oversigten
 –Kapitel 3: Produktionsmetoden
 –Kapitel 4: Indkomstmetoden
 –Kapitel 5: Udgiftsmetoden
 –Kapitel 6: Afstemnings- eller integrationsproceduren og validering af skønnene
 –Kapitel 7: Oversigt over justeringer med henblik på at opnå fuldstændighed
 –Kapitel 8: Overgangen fra bruttonationalprodukt (BNP) til BNI
 –Kapitel 9: Vigtigste anvendte klassifikationer
 –Kapitel 10: Vigtigste anvendte datakilder
 3.BNI-procestabellerne skal indeholde:
 a)talmæssige oplysninger om de skøn, der er foretaget i de fortløbende faser af BNI-udarbejdelsesprocessen for de enkelte typer anvendte kilder, og foretagne justeringer
 b)talmæssige oplysninger om den relative størrelse af de forskellige typer anvendte kilder og de justeringer, der er foretaget i denne udarbejdelsesproces
 c)henvisninger til de relevante kapitler i BNI-oversigten.
 Artikel 2
 Nærmere regler
 Medlemsstaterne sikrer, at:
 a)beskrivelsen af de kilder og metoder, der anvendes til beregning af BNI, og som angives i BNI-oversigten, anvender termer og definitioner, der er i overensstemmelse med ENS 2010
 b)beskrivelsen af de kilder og metoder, der anvendes til beregning af BNI, og som angives i BNI-oversigten, er omfattende og klar, afspejler de procedurer, der er gældende på tidspunktet for udarbejdelsen af BNI-oversigten, og indeholder oplysninger om transformation af data fra statistiske og administrative kilder til nationalregnskabsskøn gennem anvendelse af justeringer vedrørende begreber, fuldstændighed og afstemning samt valideringsprocedurer
 c)talmæssig dokumentation, som skal være i overensstemmelse med oplysningerne i procestabellerne, fremlægges for de enkelte trin i BNI-udarbejdelsesprocessen i ovennævnte beskrivelse
 d)talmæssig dokumentation er baseret på et af de seneste år, for hvilket der foreligger endelige skøn (referenceår)
 e)de kilder og metoder, der anvendes til at udarbejde BNI-aggregater og deres bestanddele, anvendes i udarbejdelsen i årene efter referenceåret.
 Artikel 3
 Tidsplan for opdatering og fremsendelse
 1.Medlemsstaterne fremsender BNI-oversigten til Kommissionen (Eurostat) senest den 31. december 2021.
 2.Efterfølgende opdateringer af BNI-oversigten udarbejdes og indberettes til Kommissionen (Eurostat) senest 12 måneder efter større ændringer af kilder eller metoder til udarbejdelse af BNI. BNI-oversigten skal under alle omstændigheder ajourføres mindst hvert 5. år.
 3.Medlemsstaterne fremsender BNI-oversigten elektronisk til Kommissionens (Eurostats) centrale dataportal.
 Artikel 4
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 23.10.2020.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 Formand
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1)
 EUT L 91 af 29.3.2019, s. 19.
 (2)
 Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 549/2013 af 21. maj 2013 om det europæiske national- og regionalregnskabssystem i Den Europæiske Union (EUT L 174 af 26.6.2013, s. 1).


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21990A0809(01)
 Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cape Verde on fishing off the coast of Cape Verde - Protocol establishing the fishing rights and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cap Verde on fishing off the coast of Cape Verde
 Official Journal L 212 , 09/08/1990 P. 0003 - 0012 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 16 P. 0055 Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 16 P. 0055
 AGREEMENT between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cape Verde on fishing off the coast of Cape VerdeTHE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY,hereinafter referred to as the 'Community`, andTHE REPUBLIC OF CAPE VERDE,hereinafter referred to as 'Cape Verde`,CONSIDERING the spirit of cooperation resulting from the Convention between the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the European Economic Community (ACP-EEC Convention) and the joint wish for closer relations between the Community and Cape Verde,CONSIDERING Cape Verde's desire to promote the rational exploitation of its fishery resources by means of increased cooperation,RECALLING that, in respect of sea fishing, Cape Verde exercises its sovereign rights or jurisdiction over a zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from its coast,TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,DETERMINED to conduct their fisheries relations in a spirit of mutal trust and respect for each other's interests,DESIROUS of establishing the conditions and terms governing fishing activities of mutal interest to the Parties,HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the principles and rules which will govern in future, in all respects, the fishing activities of vessels flying the flags of Member States of the Community, hereinafter referred to as 'Community vessels`, in the waters over which Cape Verde has sovereignty or jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other provisions of international law, hereinafter referred to as the 'Cape Verde fishing zone`. Article 2Cape Verde shall permit fishing activities by Community vessels in the Cape Verde fishing zone in accordance with this Agreement. Article 31. The Community undertakes to take all necessary steps to ensure that its vessels adhere to the provisions of this Agreement and the laws governing fishing activities in the Cape Verde fishing zone in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and other provisions of international law.2. The Cape Verdean authorities shall notify the Commission of the European Communities of any changes to the said laws prior to their application.3. The steps taken by the Cape Verdean authorities to regulate fishing in the interests of conservation shall be based on objective and scientific criteria and shall apply both to Community vessels and to other foreign vessels, without prejudice to agreements concluded between developing countries within a single geographical region, including reciprocal fisheries agreements. Article 41. Fishing activities by Community vessels in the Cape Verde fishing zone shall be subject to possession of a licence issued by the relevant Cape Verdean authorities at the Community's request.2. The issue of a licence shall be subject to payment of a fee by the shipowner concerned.3. The procedure for licence applications, the fees payable and arrangements for payment are set out in the Annex. Article 5The Parties undertake to coordinate either directly or within international organizations their efforts to ensure themanagement and conservation of living resources in the Central East Atlantic, particularly with regard to highly migratory species, and to facilitate the relevant scientific research. Article 6The masters of the vessels authorized under the terms of this Agreement to fish in the Cape Verde fishing zone shall be obliged to send their statements of catch to the Cape Verdean authorities, with a copy to the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Praia, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Annex. Article 7In return for the fishing rights granted pursuant to Article 2, the Community shall make a financial contribution to Cape Verde in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Protocol attached to this Agreement, without prejudice to financing accorded to Cape Verde under the ACP-EEC Convention. Article 8If, as a result of the changing stocks situation, the Cape Verdean authorities decide to apply conservation measures affecting the fishing activities of Community vessels, the Parties shall consult each other with a view to adjusting the Annex and the Protocol.These consultations shall be based on the principle that any reduction of the fishing rights laid down in the said Protocol must entail a proportional reduction in the financial compensation payable by the Community. Article 9A joint committee shall be set up to ensure that this Agreement is properly applied. The committee shall meet, alternatively in Cape Verde and the Community, at the request of either of the Contracting Parties.The Parties shall consult each other on any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement. Article 10Nothing in this Agreement shall affect or prejudice in any manner whatsoever the views of either Party with respect to any matter relating to the law of the sea.Article 11This Agreement shall apply, on the one hand, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty and, on the other hand, to the territory of the Republic of Cape Verde. Article 12The Annex and the Protocol to this Agreement form an integral part thereof and, unless otherwise specified, any reference to this Agreement constitutes a reference to them. Article 131. This Agreement shall be concluded for an initial period of three years from the date of its entry into force. Unless one of the Parties ends it by giving notice to that effect six months before the end of the initial period, it shall be extended for further periods of two years, unless denounced by notice given at least three months before the end of any such two-year period.2. At the end of the initial period, and subsequently of each two-year period, the Contracting Parties shall enter into negotiations to determine by common agreement what amendments or additions to the Annex or Protocol are required.The Parties shall enter into negotiations in the event of either of them denouncing the Agreement. Article 14This Agreement shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties notify each other of the completion of the procedures necessary for this purpose. Article 15This Agreement, drawn up in duplicate in the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish languages, all the texts being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Communities, which shall transmit a certified copy to each of the Contracting Parties.ANNEX CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF FISHING ACTIVITIES BY COMMUNITY VESSELS IN THE CAPE VERDE FISHING ZONEA. Licence application and issuing formalities1. The relevant Community authorites shall present to the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde, via the Commission Delegation in Cape Verde, an application for each vessel that is to be used for fishing under the Agreement, at least 15 days before the date of commencement of the period of validity requested.The applications shall be made on the forms provided for that purpose by the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde, a specimen of which is attached hereto (Appendix 1).2. Each licence application shall be accompanied by proof of payment of the fee for the period of the licence's validity. Payment shall be made into an account opened with a financial institution or any other body designated by the Cape Verdean authorities.The fees shall include all national and local charges except for port taxes and service charges.3. Licences for all vessels shall be issued by the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde, within 15 days following receipt of proof of payment as laid down in point 2, to the shipowners or their representatives via the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Cape Verde.4. Licences shall be issued for a specific vessel and shall not be transferable. However, at the request of the Commission of the European Communities, a vessel's licence may, and in the case of force majeure shall, be replaced by a new licence for another vessel with features similar to those of the first vessel. The owner of the first vessel shall return the cancelled licence to the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde via the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Cape Verde.The new licence shall indicate:- the date of issue,- the fact that it replaces the licence of the previous vessel for the remaining period of validity.In this case, no fee as laid down in Article 4 (2) of the Agreement shall be due for unexpired period of validity.5. The licence must be held on board at all times.6. The Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde shall give notice, before the Agreement enters into force, of the arrangements for payment of the fee, including information on bank accounts and the currencies to be used.B. Provisions applicable to licences for tuna vessels and surface longliners1. Licences shall be valid for one year. They shall be renewable.2. The fee shall be set at ECU 20 per tonne caught within the Cape Verde fishing zone.3. Licences shall be issued following payment to the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde of a lump sum of ECU 1 500 a year for each tuna seiner and ECU 300 a year for each pole-and-line tuna vessel and surface longliner, equivalent to the fees payable for a catch of:- 75 tonnes of tuna per year in the case of seiners,- 15 tonnes per year in the case of pole-and-line tuna vessels and surface longliners.4. The final statement of the fees due for the fishing period shall be drawn up by the Commission of the European Communities at the end of each calendar year on the basis of the catch statements made for each vessel and confirmed by the relevant scientific institutes, including the Institut français de recherchescientifique et technique d'outre-mer (ORSTOM), the Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO) and the Instituto Nacional de Investigação das Pescas (INIP) of Cape Verde.The statement shall be forwarded simultaneously to the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde and to the shipowners. Any additional payment due shall be made by the shipowners to the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde no later than 30 days after notification of the final statement, to be paid into the account opened with a financial institution or any other body designated by the Cape Verdean authorities.However, if the amount of the final statement is lower than the abovementioned amount, the resulting balance shall not be reimbursable.C. Provisions applicable to licences for other vessels1. In the case of bottom longliners, licences shall be valid for three, six or 12 months. The annual fee shall be fixed according to GRT, at the rate of ECU 100 per GRT, in proportion to the duration of the licence.2. In the case of vessels carrying out experimental cephalopod fishing, the fee shall be set at ECU 60 per GRT per year.D. Statement of catch1. For tuna seiners, pole-and-line tuna vessels and surface longliners a fishing log shall be kept, in accordance with the model in Appendix 2, for each fishing period spent in the Cape Verde fishing zone. The form must be sent, within 45 days of the end of the fishing voyage spent in the Cape Verde fishing zone, to the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde via the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Cape Verde.2. Bottom longliners and vessels carrying out experimental cephalopod fishing shall be obliged to notify the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde of their catches using the standard form set out in Appendix 3 via the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Cape Verde. These statements shall be monthly and must be communicated at least once every three months.3. Forms must be completed legibly and be signed by the master of the vessel.4. Should these provisions not be adhered to, the relevant Cape Verdean authorities reserve the right to apply, inter alia, one or both of the following penalties:- suspension of the licence of the offending vessel,- imposition of a fine.In this case, the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Cape Verde shall be informed.E. Landing of catchCommunity tuna vessels shall, wherever possible, contribute towards supplying the Cape Verde tuna canning factories in accordance with their catches in the zone at a price fixed by mutual agreement between the Community shipowners and the Cape Verdean fishing authorities on the basis of current prices on the international market. Payment shall be made in convertible currency.Moreover, tuna vessels landing their catches in a Cape Verdean port shall, wherever possible, make part of their by-catch available to the fishing authorities of Cape Verde at local market prices.F. Signing-on of seamen1. Tuna vessel and surface longliner owners shall employ Cape Verdean nationals, subject to the following conditions and limits:- for the fleet of tuna seiners, three Cape Verdean seamen shall be signed on during the tuna fishing period in the Cape Verde fishing zone,- for the fleet of pole-and-line tuna vessels, eight Cape Verdean seamen shall be signed on during the tuna fishing period in the Cape Verde fishing zone, all of them to be assigned to different vessels,- for the fleet of surface longliners, two Cape Verdean seamen shall be signed on during the fishing period in the Cape Verde fishing zone, each of them to be assigned to different vessels.2. The wages of these seamen shall be fixed, before licences are issued, by mutual agreement between the shipowners or their representatives and the relevant Cape Verdean authorities; the wages shall be borne by the shipowners and must include the social contributions to which the seaman is subject (including life assurance and accident and sickness insurance).3. Should the seamen not be signed on, shipowners shall be obliged to pay a lump sum equivalent to the wages of seamen not signed on.This sum will be used for the training of seamen in Cape Verde and is to be paid into the account specified by the relevant Cape Verdean authorities.G. Taking on board of observers1. At the request of the relevant Cape Verdean authorities, vessels of more than 150 GRT shall take on board an observer appointed by the said authorities, whose task shall be to check on catches in the Cape Verde fishing zone. He shall be offered every facility needed to carry out his duties, including access to premises and documents. He must not remain on board any longer than is necessary for the accomplishment of his duties.The master of the vessel shall facilitate the work of the observer, who shall be accorded the conditions enjoyed by officers of the vessel. The salary and the social contributions of the observer shall be borne by the relevant Cape Verdean authorities.2. The work of the observer and the conditions under which he is taken on board must not interrupt or hamper fishing activities. The port in which the observer is taken on board shall be determined by mutual agreement between the relevant Cape Verdean authorities and the shipowner or his representative. Should the observer be taken on board in a foreign port, his travelling costs shall be borne by the shipowner. Should a tuna vessel with an observer on board leave the Cape Verde fishing zone, all measures must be taken to ensure the observer's return to Cape Verde as soon as possible at the expense of the shipowner.H. Fishing zones1. Community vessels may carry out fishing activities in the following zones, determined by reference to the base lines:- beyond 12 miles for tuna seiners and surface longliners,- beyond six miles for pole-and-line tuna vessels,- from the base lines for live bait fishing and for bottom longliners.2. Cephalopod vessels carrying out experimental fishing shall have access to all the Cape Verde fishing zones.I. Meshes authorizedThe minimum mesh size authorized for the trawl body (mesh fully extended) shall be:- 16 mm for live bait fishing,- 40 mm for cephalopods.In the case of tuna, the international standards recommended by ICCAT shall apply.J. Entering and leaving the zone1. All Community vessels fishing under the Agreement in the Cape Verde zone shall communicate to the Saõ Vicente radio station the date and time and their position when entering and leaving the Cape Verde fishing zone.2. While fishing in the Cape Verde zone, vessels shall notify their position and their catch to the relevant Cape Verdean authorities every three days via the Saõ Vicente radio station, and give their total catch each time they leave the zone.3. The call sign and operating frequencies and working hours of the station shall be communicated to the shipowners or their representatives by the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde at the time the licence is issued.4. In cases where this radio communication cannot be used, vessels may use alternative means, such as telex or telegram.K. Port equipment and use of supplies and servicesCommunity vessels shall, where possible, procure in Cape Verde all supplies and services necessary for their activities. The relevant Cape Verdean authorities shall, in agreement with the shipowners or their representatives, establish the conditions for using port equipment and, if necessary, supplies and services.L. Procedure in case of boarding1. The Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Cape Verde shall be notified within 48 hours of any boarding within the Cape Verde fishing zone of a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State of the Community and operating under this Agreement. A brief report of the circumstances and reasons leading to the boarding shall be provided within 72 hours.2. A meeting shall be held, within 24 hours of receipt of the abovementioned information, between the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Cape Verde, the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde and the inspection authorities, possibly attended by a representative of the Member State concerned, at which the parties shall exchange any relevant documentation or information helping to clarify the circumstances of the established facts. The shipowner or his representative shall be informed of the outcome of the meeting and of any measures resulting from the boarding.3. A vessel boarded following a fisheries infringement shall be released upon payment of a security, to be fixed in the light of the costs occasioned by the boarding and the amount of fines and compensation to which those responsible for the infringement are liable.Appendix 1OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FISHERIESLicence application for foreign industrial fishing vessels 1. Name of shipowner: ............................................................. ............................................................. 2. Address of shipowner: ............................................................. ............................................................. 3. Name of representative or local agent of shipowner: ............................................................. ............................................................. 4. Address of representative or local agent of shipowner: ............................................................. ............................................................. 5. Name of master: ............................................................. 6. Name of vessel: ............................................................. 7. Registration number: ............................................................. 8. Date and place of construction: ............................................................. 9. Flying the flag of: .............................................................10. Port of registration: .............................................................11. Port of rigging: .............................................................12. Overall length: .............................................................13. Width: .............................................................14. Gross tonnage: .............................................................15. Net tonnage: .............................................................16. Hold capacity: .............................................................17. Chilling or freezing capacity: .............................................................18. Engine type and horse power: .............................................................19. Type of fishing: .............................................................20. Crew complement: .............................................................21. Communication equipment: .............................................................22. Call sign: .............................................................23. Dialling signals: .............................................................24. Fishing operations to be carried out: .............................................................25. Place for landing catch: .............................................................26. Fishing zones: .............................................................27. Species to be caught: .............................................................28. Period of validity: .............................................................29. Special conditions: .............................................................30. Other activities of the applicant in Cape Verde: ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................Opinion of the Directorate-General for Fisheries ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. Appendix 2>START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC> Appendix 3INFORMATION ON CATCHES RESULTING FROM INDUSTRIAL FISHING1. Name and registration number of vessel: .............................................................2. Nationality: .............................................................Type of vessel: 3. Type of vessel: .............................................................(i.e. for fresh fish, tuna, etc.)4. Master's name: .............................................................5. Fishing licence issued by: .............................................................valid for the period: .............................................................6. Type of fishing: .............................................................7. Date of leaving port: .............................................................Date of entering port: .............................................................8. Catches: .>TABLE>I the undersigned ........................................................., Master of the vessel cited above, or his representative, hereby declare that the information given above is correct, as witnessed by the observer of the Government.Witnessed by The Observer of the GovernmentThe MasterSignedPROTOCOL establishing the fishing rights and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cape Verde on fishing off the coast of Cape Verde Article 11. Pursuant to Article 2 of the Agreement and for a period of three years, fishing rights shall be as follows:(a) Highly migratory species- Freezer tuna seiners: 21 vessels,- Pole-and-line tuna vessels and surface longliners:24 vessels.At the Community's request, the allocation of fishing rights for highly migratory species for the second year of application of this Protocol may be altered for a maximum of 15 % of the vessels concerned.(b)Other species- Bottom longliners: two vessels, each with a tonnage of less than 210 GRT,- Experimental cephalopod fishing: two vessels.2. The first meeting of the joint committee referred to in Article 9 of the Agreement to be held during the second year of application of this Protocol shall examine the available results of the experimental cephalopod fishing. Article 21. For the period referred to in Article 1, the financial compensation referred to in Article 7 of the Agreement shall be ECU 1 950 000, payable in three equal annual instalments.2. The use to which this compensation is put shall be the sole responsibility of the Cape Verdean authorities.3. The compensation shall be paid into an account opened with a financial institution or any other body designated by the Cape Verdean authorities. Article 3The shipowners concerned shall retain full property rights over catches made as part of the experimental cephalopod fishing.Article 4The Community shall also contribute during the period referred to in Article 1 the sum of ECU 500 000 towards the financing of a Cape Verde scientific or technical programme (equipment, infrastructure, seminars, studies, etc.) to improve information on the fishery resources within the exclusive economic zone of Cape Verde.This sum shall be made available to the Office of the Secretary of State for Fisheries of Cape Verde and paid into the bank account indicated by the Office. Article 51. The two Parties agree that improving the skills and knowledge of those involved in sea fishing is a vital element in the success of their cooperation. To that end, the Community shall make it easier for nationals of Cape Verde to find places in establishments in its Member States and shall provide for that purpose awards for study and practical training in the various scientific, technical and economic disciplines relating to fisheries. The awards may also be used in any country linked with the Community by a cooperation agreement.2. The total cost of the awards may not exceed ECU 160 000. At the request of the Cape Verdean authorities, part of this sum may be used to cover the costs of participation in international meetings or training courses concerning fisheries. The sum shall be payable as and when it is used. Article 6Should the Community fail to make the payments provided for in Articles 2 and 4, the application of this Protocol may be suspended.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
On October 6th, 1939, the Richfield Oil Corporation of New York, a body corporate, appellant, acquired by deed from Joseph P. Connor, Special Master, certain real estate located on Curtis Bay in Baltimore City, Maryland. Through this property the appellee, the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company, a body corporate, formerly operated a railroad over property in which it acquired an interest from the United States Asphalt Refining Company by deed dated September 11th, 1925. The appellant owns land on both sides of the railroad property. In November, 1926, the stock of the appellee, the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company, was acquired by the Western Maryland Railway Company, which operates the railroad formerly operated by the Chesapeake
 Curtis Bay Railroad Company. On November 2d 1940, the appellant placed certain sleeves and pipes, from one part of its property to another, necessary for the transportation of petroleum products under the railroad tracks of the appellees, late at night, which appellees claim was done in a clandestine manner but which appellant claims was done at that late hour for the purpose of not interfering with the operation of appellees' railroad. Before the installation of these pipes was completed, the appellees removed one of them. On November 29th, 1940, the appellant filed a bill of complaint against appellees reciting among other things the aforesaid facts, and alleging ownership of the fee under said right-of-way in the appellant and that the appellees' interest in said property is a certain easement of "the right of way for railroad purposes." The bill asked among other things: "That the defendants, *Page 563
 they and each of them, their agents and servants, may be permanently enjoined and strictly prohibited from interfering, obstructing or molesting the complainant, its agents and servants, in crossing or recrossing over, or in placing its pipe lines, connections, or other equipment necessary and proper to the operation and enjoyment of complainant's property hereinabove described, across and under right of way of defendants located on the complainant's said property; provided, however, that the same be performed by the complainant in such manner as not to interfere with or interrupt the reasonable and proper use by the defendants of said right of way for railroad purposes." The bill also asked for other and further relief. After an answer was filed by the defendants, testimony was taken in open court before the chancellor and on February 4th, 1941, a decree was filed by the chancellor declaring the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company to be the owner in fee simple of the property in question and dismissing the bill of complaint. The appeal is taken from that decree.
 All parties to this proceeding admit that the equity court has jurisdiction in this case in view of the findings of the chancellor. Equity, however, cannot obtain jurisdiction merely by the consent of the parties to the cause, nor has equity jurisdiction to determine a matter involving a real disputed title to real estate. Greenbaum v. Harrison, 132 Md. 34,103 A. 84; Clayton v. Shoemaker, 67 Md. 216, 9 A. 635; Gulick v.Fisher, 92 Md. 353, 364, 48 A. 375; Whalen v. Dalashmutt,59 Md. 250; Bernei v. Sappington, 102 Md. 185, 190, 62 A. 365;Arey v. Baer, 112 Md. 541, 542, 76 A. 843. "The law is well settled that an injunction will not issue to restrain a trespass, simply as such, but it will be granted where the injury alleged is irreparable, or where full and adequate relief cannot be had at law, or where the trespass is of a character to work destruction of the property as it had been held and enjoyed, or where it is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of litigation."Long v. Ragan, *Page 564 94 Md. 462 at page 464, 51 A. 181, 182; White v. Flannigain,1 Md. 525, 54 Am. Dec. 668; Shipley v. Ritter, 7 Md. 408, 61 Am. Dec. 371; Clayton v. Shoemaker, supra; Baltimore Belt R.R. Co. v.Lee, 75 Md. 596, 23 A. 901. At the time the bill of complaint was filed there had been breaches of the peace, and the parties having agreed to commit no further acts while this present case was pending, in order to avoid a multiplicity of litigation, the chancellor was correct in holding that jurisdiction in the present case is in equity.
 The primary question to be decided by us is whether the appellees, the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company and the Western Maryland Railway Company, own the fee of the land in question, underlying its railroad tracks. The chancellor below held that the fee of the land under the right of way was in the appellees. The United States Asphalt Refining Company by a series of deeds prior to March, 1916, acquired the land now occupied by both the appellant and the appellees, a ground rent being reserved unto the Curtis Bay Company. On October 5th, 1925, the Curtis Bay Company conveyed to the United States Asphalt Refining Company the reversion in all the lands heretofore conveyed by it, thereby extinguishing the ground rent and converting the leasehold into fee simple property. At the time all this tract was owned by the United States Asphalt Refining Company, it erected on the property at various locations tanks, stills, buildings and other structures of various kinds, and pipe lines were placed under the ground at different locations to carry oil from one part of the property to the other. In order to further develop this property, the United States Asphalt Refining Company built and laid out railroad tracks for the purpose of transporting its products and some of its pipe lines passed under the tracks at various points. In 1916, the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company was incorporated by the same interest which controlled the United States Asphalt Refining Company and by a series of deeds made conveyance *Page 565
 of the tracks and the property covered by the tracks to the new corporation. The first of these deeds was executed on March 16th, 1916, and the granting clause in this deed was: "doth grant unto the said Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, the rights of way for railroad purposes in and to that part of the lands of the United States Asphalt Refining Company at Wagner's Point," and the description followed. This deed contained the following saving clause: "Saving and reserving however to the said the United States Asphalt Refining Company a joint use in said right of way and the tracks thereon for the necessary switching and other uses and purposes for itself and its allied industries now or which may hereafter be located along said right of way." It also contained the following clause: "To Have and To Hold the said described rights of way and the railroad tracks thereupon unto and to the use of the said Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company, its successors and assigns; subject however to the reserve joint use aforementioned." Included in this deed was certain land which had previously been conveyed to the Texas Company and in which the United States Asphalt Refining Company had certain rights, and in the case of Texas Company v. United States Asphalt RefiningCompany, 140 Md. 350 at pages 357 and 358, 117 A. 879, 882, this court said that "The Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company was made a defendant in the case, because the Asphalt Company executed a deed to it on March 16th, 1916, attempting to convey certain rights of way for railroad purposes over part of the land appropriated to the use in common of the plaintiff and the Asphalt Company, and in which the plaintiff owned the fee, and it was alleged that the Railroad Company was making use of the easement in violation of the plaintiff's rights. * * * The easement which the Asphalt Company's deed purported to convey to the Railroad Company was not appurtenant to the land for the benefit of which the right *Page 566
 of way under the plaintiff's deed had been created. The deed to the Railroad Company did not convey to it the fee in any part of the land in connection with which the pre-existing easement had been used." The second deed to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company was dated January 2d 1924, and the granting clause, the reservation clause, and the To Have and To Hold clause were the same as in the deed of March 16th, 1916. Prior to September 11th, 1925, the railroad tracks had been spread over parts of the property of the United States Asphalt Refining Company and certain parts of the tracks formerly used by the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company had been abandoned by it. Therefore, on September 11th, 1925, an exchange deed was executed whereby the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company conveyed back to the United States Asphalt Refining Company the properties conveyed by the latter to the former in the deeds of March 16th, 1916, and January 2d 1940, and the granting clause in that deed reads in part as follows: "The said The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company doth grant, assign and reconvey unto the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company, its successors and assigns, its right, title and interest in and to all that portion of land heretofore conveyed by the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company to the said The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company. * * *" This deed also contained the following clause: "To Have and To Hold the same unto and to the use of the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company, its successors and assigns, in the same manner as if the same had not heretofore been conveyed. * * *" In the same deed of September 11th, 1925, "the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company doth grant, convey and assign unto the said The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, the rights of way for railroad purposes in and to the following lots or tracts of ground * * *," a description of which followed. The deed also contained the following clauses: *Page 567
 "Being all that portion of the lots of ground heretofore conveyed by the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company to the said The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company by the Deeds hereinbefore recited, and the right of way for railroad purposes in such other land of the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company, not heretofore conveyed to the said The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company, as is now used by the said The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company in the operation of its railroad as aforesaid."
 "Together with all and every, the rights, alleys, ways, waters, privileges, appurtenances and advantages, to the same belonging, or anywise appertaining."
 "To Have and To Hold the said described right of way and the railroad tracks thereon unto and to the use of the said The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, saving and reserving, however, to the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company, its successors and assigns, and to The Interocean Oil Company, a corporation duly incorporated, its successors and assigns, a joint use in such parts of said right of way as may now be occupied by any tanks, stills, or buildings of the said The United States Asphalt Refining Company and the said The Interocean Oil Company, now erected thereupon, and for such time as the same may remain thereupon."
 We must note the difference between the granting clause to the United States Asphalt Refining Company and that to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company in this deed of September 11th, 1925, one conveying "its right, title and interest," the other conveying "the rights of way for railroad purposes." Whatever title is held by the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company is held under this deed. Subsequently, on October 5th, 1925, the United States Asphalt Refining Company conveyed all of its property to *Page 568
 the Interocean Oil Company, a body corporate, which deed contained the following saving and excepting clause: "Saving and excepting however from the above described land such portions as is described and conveyed to the Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company by and in a deed of exchange and in the annexed hereto made between the said United States Asphalt Refining Company and the Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company dated September 11th, 1925, recorded or intended to be recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore City prior hereto, with the benefit however to the said party of the second part, its successors or assigns, of the reservations mentioned in said deed of exchange relating to the joint use of such parts of the right of way of said railroad as may now be occupied by any tanks, stills or buildings therein as recited in said deed." On the same day the Interocean Oil Company executed an indenture of trust on its aforesaid property to the Century Trust Company of Baltimore which contained the following saving and excepting clause: "Saving and excepting, however, from the above described land such portions as are described in a deed of exchange and in the plat thereto attached between the United States Asphalt Refining Company and the Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company dated September 11th, 1925, recorded or intended to be recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore City prior hereto." Later the Interocean Oil Company went into receivership and Joseph P. Connor, appointed receiver by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, as Special Master, granted and conveyed to the appellant on October 6th, 1939, the property now held by it by metes, bounds, courses and distances subject to the following clause: "Subject also to the grant of various railroad rights of way by deed between United States Asphalt Refining Company and The Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company, dated September 11th, 1925, and recorded *Page 569
 among the Land Records of Baltimore City in Liber S.C.L. No. 4465, folio 321, said railroad rights of way having an area of approximately Thirteen (13) acres of land, more or less." Whatever title is held by the appellant, Richfield Oil Corporation of New York, was acquired by this deed of October 6th, 1939.
 We must determine whether the conveyance of September 11th, 1925, above referred to, from the United States Asphalt Refining Company to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company, whereby it made a grant of "the rights of way for railroad purposes," was a grant of the fee or whether it was an easement. This court said through Judge Sloan in the case of Hodges, Trustee v. Owings,178 Md. 300 at page 304, 13 A. 2nd, 338, 340: "Both parties agree that if the language of a deed be doubtful, it shall be most strongly construed against the grantor, but, as said in Zittlev. Weller, 63 Md. 190, 196, `this rule is to be resorted to, and relied on, only where all other rules of exposition fail to reach, with reasonable certainty, the intention of the parties.' `And,' as said in Maryland State Fair v. Schmidt, 147 Md. 613, 621, 128 A. 365, 368, "to ascertain its true meaning the situation of the parties and the circumstances attending the execution of the deed may be considered.' Brown v. Reeder,108 Md. 653, 657, 71 A. 417; Logsdon v. Brailer Mining Co.,143 Md. 463, 474, 123 A. 113; Weinbeck v. Dahms, 134 Md. 464,107 A. 12." The chancellor admitted extrinsic evidence, over exception, as to the intention of the parties at the time this deed of September 11th, 1925, was executed and we believe it was rightly admitted. From the testimony in the record, it appears that Mr. J. Cookman Boyd, Sr., was general counsel of both the United States Asphalt Refining Company and the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company and remained in this position until the dissolution of the United States Asphalt Refining Company and the sale of the stock by the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company to the appellee, Western Maryland Railway Company. Mr. Boyd carried on negotiations for the sale of the stock of the Western *Page 570
 Maryland Railway Company and at that time he was president of the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company. Various letters, agreements and much testimony was produced in an effort to show the intention of the parties at the time this deed of September 11th, 1925 was executed. Mr. H.R. Pratt, chief engineer of the Western Maryland Railway Company, testified that he and Mr. George Bagby, president of the Western Maryland Railway Company, met with Mr. J. Cookman Boyd, Sr., in October, 1926, and that Mr. Boyd stated that the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company has a deed in fee simple to its right of way. Mr. Boyd denied that he ever made a statement about the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company owning in fee the land over which its tracks were placed and further stated that no fee was ever granted nor was there ever any intention of granting such a fee. There was also offered in evidence testimony taken before the Interstate Commerce Commission at the time of the sale of the stock of the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company to the Western Maryland Railway Company and testimony taken in the Federal Court on July 6th, 1939, at the time of the sale to the appellant by Joseph P. Connor, receiver, of the property now held by it. Mr. Joseph P. Connor, who was an employee of the United States Asphalt Refining Company, testified at that time that "the trackage belongs to the Western Maryland Railway Company in fee," that it is taken out of the bid and is not included in the property to be sold. In testifying in the instant case, Mr. Connor called attention to the fact that this statement made in the federal court was as to "trackage." Without commenting on all of this voluminous testimony and evidence, we must conclude that it does not show that there was an intention by the United States Asphalt Refining Company to convey a fee simple title to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company by its deed of September 11th, 1925. We further find that, at the time of the purchase of this stock, the Western Maryland Railway Company had the title to the property of the Chesapeake *Page 571 Curtis Bay Railroad Company examined by the Title Guarantee and Trust Company of Baltimore and a report by letter was given by the said title company on April 11th, 1927, which report included the following: "In this deed you will note also that the subject matter of the grant is a right of way, and in the habendum
 clause of the deed there is reserved to the United States Asphalt Refining Company, its successors and assigns, and to the Inter-Ocean Oil Company, its successors and assigns, a joint use in such parts of said right of way as may now be occupied by any tanks, stills or buildings of the United States Asphalt Refining Company and the Inter-Ocean Oil Company for such time as the same may remain upon said right of way. Subject to the above, we find the title of the Chesapeake and Curtis Bay Railroad Company to the rights of way as defined and described in the said deed of September 11th, 1925, to be good and marketable, and free of encumbrances, except the qualifications or reservations, as heretofore mentioned. And except also as to the possible reverter in the United States Asphalt Refining Company, in the event of the non use of the said rights of way for railroad purposes." The appellees objected to the admissibility of this letter, but it was admitted by the chancellor, and we believe rightly so, not as evidence to the title which was held by the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company, but as to the understanding which the Western Maryland Railway Company had as to this title at the time of the purchase of the stock. The court was correct in not admitting in evidence a confirmatory deed to appellant executed after the present action had been started. Without commenting further on this evidence, we do not believe that it is sufficient to change the public record of the deed. Our interpretation must be placed on the deed to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company of September 11th, 1925 as recorded. The rights of the parties are determined and measured by the terms of the deed, particularly as the appellant is a stranger to this deed and purchased the property upon *Page 572
 the faith of the public record. Kensington Railway Company v.Moore, 115 Md. 36, 80 A. 614. The granting clause in this deed of September 11th, 1925, granted, conveyed and assigned, "the rights of way for railroad purposes." Sections 11 and 12 of article 21 of the Code provide as follows: "11. No words of inheritance shall be necessary to create an estate in fee simple, but every conveyance of real estate shall be construd to pass a fee simple estate, unless a contrary intention shall appear by express terms or be necessarily implied therein. 12. The word `grant,' the phrase `bargain and sell,' in a deed, or any other words purporting to transfer the whole estate of the grantor shall be construed to pass to the grantee the whole interest and estate of the grantor in the lands therein mentioned, unless there be limitations or reservations showing, by implication or otherwise, a different intent."
 The railroad tracks had been laid by the United States Asphalt Refining Company for its own use in transportation of its products. At the time of the incorporation of the Chesapeake
 Curtis Bay Railroad Company, both companies were owned by the same interests. It is hardly conceivable that the interests which controlled the parent corporation would create and cause to be conveyed to another corporation a strip of land in fee running through its property, for by so doing the control and ownership of the newly created corporation might pass to entirely different interests, whereby the parent company might be cut of and not allowed to cross from one part of its property to another, and particularly with tanks and stills on all parts of its property such crossings were necessary for the proper operation if its business. Quoting Elliott on "Railroads," (3rd Ed.), sec. 1158, pages 627 and 628: "Where the intention to convey a fee does not appear, as in the conveyance of a `right of way' for the railroad through certain lands, the company takes an easement only." Quoting Lewis on "Eminent Domain," (3rd Ed.), sec. 468; "The conveyance of a right of way or for specified uses, conveys an easement *Page 573
 only." Quoting Jones on "Easements," (1898 Ed.), sec. 212: "Where the granting clause of a deed declared the purpose of the grant to be the right of way for a railroad, the deed passes an easement only, etc." Public Serv. Comm. v. Gas, etc., Corp.,162 Md. 298, 312, 316, 159 A. 758; Hodges v. Owings,178 Md. 300, 13 A. 2nd 338; Blakely v. Chicago, K. N.R. Co.,46 Neb. 272, 64 N.W. 972; Jones v. Van Bochove, 103 Mich. 98, 61 N.W. 342; Alabama Gt. So. R. Co. v. McWhorter, 202 Ala. 455,80 So. 839; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Banks, 207 Ala. 194, 92 So. 117;Leader Realty Co. v. Taylor, 147 La. 256, 84 So. 648; Millerv. Chesapeake Ohio Ry. Co., 93 W. Va. 257, 116 S.E. 521;Branch v. Central Trust Company, 320 Ill. 432, 151 N.E. 284;Joseph v. Evans, 338 Ill. 11, 170 N.E. 10. 1 Thompson on RealProperty, page 533, sec. 420, defines "a grant of a right of way to a railroad company to be the grant of an easement merely, and the fee remains in the grantor." Jones on Easements, supra,
 sec. 211; 33 CYC "Railroads," page 169; Smith v. Holloway,124 Ind. 329, 24 N.E. 886. It, therefore, must be concluded that this grant from United States Asphalt Refining Company to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company of September 11th, 1925, was the grant of an easement for railroad purposes and not a grant of the fee. The appellees rely greatly on the case of NewMexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U.S. 171, 19 S. Ct. 128, 43 L. Ed. 407. The question in that case to be decided was a question of taxation and the court said, in construing the statute at page 181 of 172 U.S., at page 132 of 19 S.Ct.: "To support its contention, appellant urges the technical meaning of the phrase `right of way,' and claims that the primary presumption is that it was used in its technical sense. Undoubtedly that is the presumption, but such presumption must yield to an opposing context and the intention of the legislature otherwise indicated." The opinion in that case also states that "our decision * * * rests on the terms of the statute." The appellees also rely on the case of Arkansas Improvement Companyv. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 189 La. 921, *Page 574
 181, So. 445. It is said in that case at page 447 of 181 So.: "A right of way may consist either of the fee, or merely of a right of passage and use, or servitude. Whether the one or the other is meant in any particular instrument must be gathered from the instrument as a whole. As a general rule, only a servitude is meant."
 The appellees further contend that the reservations in the deed of October 5th, 1925, from the United States Asphalt Refining Company to Interocean Oil Company and in the indenture of trust of October 5th, 1925, from Interocean Oil Company to Century Trust Company reserving such portions as are described in the deed of September 11th, 1925, from United States Asphalt Refining Company to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company, and the provision in the deed from Joseph P. Connor, Special Master, to Richfield Oil Corporation, appellant, that the conveyance was subject to the grant of various railroad rights of way by the same deed from United States Asphalt Refining Company to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company, prevent the fee of the land in dispute vesting in appellant. Having previously decided in this case that the grant to the Chesapeake Curtis Bay Railroad Company was an easement for railroad purposes and these exceptions extending to the portions conveyed, and thoseportions being an easement for railroad purposes, we find that the fee is therefore in appellant subject to the easement of rights of way for railroad purposes in appellees. Derby v.Hall, 2 Gray 236; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Ward, 100 Fed. 2nd; Paine v. Consumers' Forwarding Storage Co., 71 Fed. 626; Elliot v. Small, 35 Minn. 396, 29 N.W. 158; Moakley v.Blog, 90 Cal. App. 96, 265 P. 548; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.v. Marietta Oil Corp., 102 F.2d 603; Barker v. Lashbrook,128 Kan. 595, 279 P. 12.
 It having been decided that the fee is in appellant and an easement of rights of way for railroad purposes is in the appellees, should the injunction prayed for be granted? Although the appellant owns the *Page 575
 land on both sides of the right of way where it proposes to install the new pipe line which is the subject of this controversy, it is more or less admitted that the purpose of the pipe line in question is to carry oil for shipment to the Baltimore Ohio Railroad, which is a competitor of appellees. Appellant contends that it is essential from its point of view to have service on the Baltimore Ohio Railroad. With this statement, we do not believe it necessary to consider further the allegation of irreparable damage, the appellant being the owner of the fee and the other facts in this case as hereinbefore presented being considered. Chesapeake Co. v. Mt. Vernon Co.,107 Md. 528, at page 532, 68 A. 1046. It is further contended that the installation of the particular pipe line in question would be a possible source of danger to appellees. It was admitted, however, by Mr. George R. Haworth, general superintendent of the Western Maryland Railway Company, that there are other pipe lines under the tracks and other terminals of the Western Maryland Railway Company at other places and that these pipes are placed three feet below the sub-ballast section and about five feet below the top of the rail and that is the general way these pipe lines are installed at locations similar to the place where the appellant proposes to install the new pipe line. It, therefore, appears that the installation of the proposed pipe line three feet below the sub-ballast section and five feet below the top of the rail would not interfere with the easement for railroad purposes provided it is placed at such a time as not to interrupt the reasonable and proper use by the appellees of said rights of way for railroad purposes. There is testimony in this case that the pipe line which was removed had been laid about three and one-half to four feet under the track. A stipulation was made by appellees as follows: "That the plaintiff has the right of ingress and egress over the surface of the railroad to and from parcels of plaintiff's land which are *Page 576
 completely enclosed by tracks. That in so far as the intraplant operation of plaintiff are concerned defendant has no objection to the laying of pipes below the surface of the tracks to and from its land which is completely encircled by tracks, subject to the defendant's approval of the manner of laying the pipes."
 We find that the appellant, its agents and servants, have the right of crossing or recrossing over, or in placing its pipe lines, connections or other equipment necessary and proper to the operation and enjoyment of appellant's property across and under the right of way of appellees located on the property owned by the appellant in fee; provided, however, that this be performed by the appellant in such manner and at such times as not to interfere with or interrupt the reasonable and proper use by the appellees of said rights of way for railroad purposes. PublicServ. Comm. v. Gas, etc., Corp. supra; 17 AmericanJurisprudence, Easements, sec. 117; Cincinnati, etc., R.R. Co.v. Wachter, 70 Ohio St. 113, 70 N.E. 974; Smith Canal DitchCo. v. Colorado Ice Storage Co., 34 Col. 485, 82 P. 940;Perley v. Cambridge, 220 Mass. 507, 108 N.E. 494; 3 BritishRuling Cases, page 536, citing Rivera v. Finn, 50 Hun 176, 3 N Y Supp. 22; Kendall v. Hardy, 208 Mass. 20, 94 N.E. 254;Miller v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 94 S.C. 105, 77 S.E. 748. For the reasons herein given we find that the injunction should have been granted as prayed.
 At the time the hearing was concluded, the chancellor verbally indicated his intention to dismiss the bill of complaint, and after this time and before the written opinion and order was filed, the appellant filed a petition to amend the bill of complaint and the chancellor refused to allow this amendment. A very wide discretion is given the court in allowing or refusing amendments at any time prior to a final decree in the case, and in the absence of abuse, ordinarily that discretion will not be reviewed. Miller's Equity Procedure, sec. 182; Buckner v.Jones, 157 Md. 239, 145 S.E. 550; Snook v. Munday, *Page 577 96 Md. 514, 515, 54 A. 77; Calvert v. Carter, 18 Md. 73, 107;Warren v. Twilley, 10 Md. 39, 46. As this petition to amend was filed after the chancellor had verbally announced his decision in the case, we do not find that the discretion of the chancellor in refusing the amendment was abused.
 Decree reversed, with costs, and case remanded for the passageof a decree in accordance with the views herein expressed.