Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

have expended large sums of money in constructing a plant and in maintaining it, an ordinary sense of right and fair dealing requires the application of this rule. The above rule in respect to the performance of conditions applies equally to contracts not exclusive in their character.

§ 930. Assignment of exclusive privilege or license.

The legal right of the grantee of an exclusive privilege or license to assign or transfer by sale, or through consolidation, his rights is largely dependent upon the language of the license or grant. It is true as with privileges not of an exclusive character that they are assignable ordinarily to other persons or corporations for a period equal to their unexpired term unless this is prohibited by the grant.1245 The absence of a prohibition is sufficient affirmative authority. They may be granted for a time in excess of the corporate life of the grantee and under the operation of the principle stated above they may be assigned lawfully to interests succeeding them. The nonobservance of conditions imposed for the benefit of the municipality may be waived by it.1246 A condition against assignment will not as between the parties prevent a legal transfer of interests for the condition is one imposed for the benefit of the grantor alone.

§ 931. Grants to street railway companies.

A grant to a street railway company of the right to occupy and use streets of a city may not only be an exclusive one because of the language used in the grant, but because of the character of the business carried on. A grant not exclusive in its terms is usually regarded as such during its term. The occupation of

1245 City R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 166 U. S. 557; Canal & C. R. Co. v. Orleans R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 54, 10 So. 389. Where there is no prohibition, a street railroad owning and operating a street railway under a franchise from the city may lease to another company the right to use its tracks and the city has no interest in the amount of compensation which shall be paid by

the lessee to the lessor. See, also, as holding the same, Canal & C. R. Co. v. St. Charles St. R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 1069, 11 So. 702; Adee v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 65 App. Div. 529, 72 N. Y. Supp. 992.

Toledo Elec. St. R. Co. v. Toledo & M. V. Ry. Co., 7 Ohio, N. P. 211.

1246 Chicago & S. S. Rapid Transit Co. v. Northern Trust Co., 90 Ill. App. 460.

streets by a street railway company with its tracks and other facilities is necessarily exclusive.1247 The question of additional compensation to the abutting owner and conditions upon which licenses to street railways are usually granted have been considered in preceding sections.1248 In common with all grants of a similar character one given to a street railway company is construed strictly both in respect to the existence of assumed rights 1249 and also the conditions which may exist in connection

1247 Jackson County Horse R. Co. v. Interstate Rapid Transit R. Co., 24 Fed. 306. “But power to permit one citizen to use the streets in a given way is a very different thing from power to give such citizen the right to keep every other citizen from a like use of the streets. The one is a mere street regulation, a license; the other rises into the dignity of a contract, a franchise. The one may rest upon the ordinary powers of a street management and control, the other requires the support of a special grant. Doubtless the city may practically secure exclusive occupation to one railway company; i. e., by giving permission to one, and withholding permission from all others, the occupation of that one becomes, for the time being, exclusive. But that is an altogether different matter. In the one case the exclusiveness depends on the continuous will of the city in the other upon that of the individual company. In the one the full and constant control of the streets is retained; in the other it is partially transferred to the company. Again, exclusiveness of occupation is not necessary to the full performance of a street railroad company of all its functions. The running of a street railroad on one street is in no manner interfered with by the running of a simiAbb. Corp. Vol. III — 13.

lar road on a parallel street. Doubtless the profits of the one will be increased if the other is stopped. Monopoly implied increase of profits. But the question of profits is very different from that of the unimpeded facilities for transacting business. The latter may be granted without any exclusiveness. And power to grant all facilities for transacting business does not imply power to forbid all others from transacting like business."

Indianapolis Cable St. R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 127 Ind. 369, 24 N. E. 1054, 26 N. E. 893, 8 L. R. A.. 539; Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. v. City of Detroit, 110 Mich. 384, 68 N. W. 304, 35 L. R. A. 859; Edison Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Merchants' & Manufacturers' Elec. Light, Heat & Power Co., 200 Pa. 209, 49 Atl. 766. The same rule applied where franchises are given to two electric light companies and interference is unavoidable; the latter must in time give way. Homestead St. R. Co. v. Pittsburg & H. Elec. St. R. Co., 166 Pa. 162, 30 Atl. 950, 27 L. R. A. 383. Beach, Monopolies, § 122; Elliott, Roads & St. (2d Ed.) §§ 745 and 746.

1248 See §§ 835 et seq., ante.

1249 Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Detroit R. Co., 171 U. S. 48; City of Detroit v. Detroit City R. Co., 56 Fed. 867; Birmingham & P. M. St.

with the granting of the license or privilege.1250 An exclusive license to operate a street railway company by means of animal power would not, under the application of this principle, be impaired by the grant of one to operate a system by electricity or other power.1251 An interference with exclusive rights whether

R. Co. v. Birmingham St. R. Co., 79 Ala. 465; City of New Orleans v. Steinhardt, 52 La. Ann. 1043, 29 So. 586; New Bedford & F. St. R. Co. v. Achushnet St. R. Co., 143 Mass. 200, 9 N. E. 536; St. Louis Transfer R. Co. v. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal R. Co., Ill. Mo. 666, 20 S. W. 319; West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 163, 35 Atl. 49; Pennsylvania S. V. R. Co. v. Pennsyl vania & R. R. Co., 157 Pa. 42, 27 A. 683. The grant of the right to occupy so much of the street "as may be necessary" confers no exclusive privileges unless the whole width of the street is reasonably neces sary for its business.

Potts v. Quaker City El. R. Co., 161 Pa. 396, 29 Atl. 108. Considering Pennsylvania Elevated Railroad Acts holding that an elevated railroad company in a city is a street passenger railway and can be incorporated under the general railroad acts. Commonwealth v. Northeastern L. R. Co., 161 Pa. 409, 29 Atl. 112. A company incorporated as a street passenger railroad cannot build an elevated street railroad. Peoples' Pass. R. Co. v. City of Memphis (Tenn.) 16 S. W. 973; Gulf City St. R. Co. v. Galveston City R. Co., 65 Tex. 502; Murray Hill Land Co. v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co., 110 Wis. 555, 86 N. W. 199.

1250 Denver Tramway Co. v. Londoner, 20 Colo. 150; West End & A. St. R. Co. v. Atlanta St. R. Co.,

49 Ga. 151; Smith v. Indianapolis St. R. Co., 158 Ind. 425, 63 N. E. 849; Spitzer v. Runyan, 113 Iowa, 619, 85 N. W. 782. Erection and maintenance of a viaduct. State v. Latrobe, 81 Md. 222; Prince v. Crocker, 166 Mass. 347, 44 N. E. 446, 32 L. R. A. 610. Construing Mass. St. 1894, c. 548, Boston subway act; City of Duluth v. Duluth St. R. Co., 60 Minn. 178; Jersey City & B. R. Co. v. Jersey City & H. Horse R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. Green) 61, Id., 21 N. J. Eq. (6 C. E. Green) 550; Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co. v. City of Cape May, 58 N. J. Law, 565, 34 Atl. 397. The rule applied to the construction of extensions. Camden Horse R. Co. v. Scott, 52 N. J. Eq. 452; Kennelly v. Jersey City, 57 N. J. Law, 293, 26 L. R. A. 281; Kent v. Common Council of City of Binghampton, 72 App. Div. 623, 76 N. Y. Supp. 584; Potter v. Scranton Traction Co., 176 Pa. 271, 35 Atl. 188. An acquiesence by a borough in a change of motive power for a term of five years will establish the right in a railroad company to the change. Gray v. Dallas Terminal R. & Union Depot Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 158, 36 S. W. 352.

1251 Omaha Horse R. Co. v. Cable Tramway Co., 30 Fed. 324; Denver R. Co. v. Denver City R. Co., 2 Colo. 673; Wilmington City R. Co. v. Wilmington & B. S. R. Co. (Del.) 46 Atl. 12; Southern R. Co. v. Atlanta R. & Power Co., 111 Ga. 679, 36 S. E. 873, 51 L. R. A. 125. The

granted to street railways or others, where they clearly appear, by either the municipality or by others, can be enjoined.1252 Exclusive privileges or rights are regarded as property which cannot be illegally or arbitrarily taken.1253

language of the grant from the city controls the power to be used, not that of the charter of the street railroad. Indianapolis Cable St. R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 127 Ind. 369, 24 N. E. 1054, 26 N. E. 893, 8 L. R. A. 539; Teachout V. Des Moines Broad-Guage St. R. Co., 75 Iowa, 722, 38 N. W. 145; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bowling Green Ry. Co., 23 Ky. L. R. 273, 63 S. W. 4. A change of power may be authorized. Louisville Bagging & Mfg. Co. v. Central Pass. R. Co., 95 Ky. 50; Canal &C. R. Co. v. Crescent City Ry. Co., 44 La. Ann. 485, 10 So. 888; Hooper v. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co., 85 Md. 509, 37 Atl. 359, 38 L. R. A. 509; Paterson R. Co. v. Grundy, 51 N. J. Eq. 213; Lockhart v. Craig St. R. Co., 139 Pa. 419. But see Buckner v. Hart, 52

Fed. 835.

1252 Vicksburg Water-works Co. v. City of Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65; Santa Rosa St. R. Co. v. Central St. R. Co. (Cal.) 38 Pac. 986; City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 124 Cal. 377, 57 Pac. 213, 571. The same rule applies to an unlawful attempt to take possession of a private waterworks plant by the city. Atlanta R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta Rapid Transit Co., 113 Ga. 481, 39 S. E. 12; Des Moines St. R. Co. v. Des Moines B. G. St. R. Co., 73 Iowa, 513, 33 N. W. 610, 35 N. W. 602; New Orleans, C. & L. R. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 748, 11 So. 77; St. Louis R. Co. v. Northwestern St. L. R. Co., 69 Mo. 65; Jersey City Gas Co.

v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 242; Citizens' Coach Co. v. Camden Horse R. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 267. A horse railway may enjoin an omnibus company from the general as distinguished from the incidental use of its track. Pocantico Water-works Co. v. Bird, 51 Hun, 644, 4 N. Y. Supp. 317. The rule applied to nonexclusive franchise for supply of water. Ft. Worth St. R. Co. v. Queen City R. Co., 71 Tex. 165, 9 S. W. 94. But see Coatesville & D. St. R. Co. v. Uwchlan St. R. Co., 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 524; Birmingham Traction Co. v. Southern Bell Telep. & Tel. Co., 119 Ala. 144, 24 So. 731; Market St. R. Co. v. Central R. Co., 51 Cal. 583; Coffeyville Min. & Gas Co. v. Citizens' Natural Gas & Min. Co., 55 Kan. 173, 40 Pac. 326. Injunction will not lie where no exclusive rights are granted.

New York & H. R. Co. v. FortySecond St. & G. S. Ferry R. Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 285. Where exclusive rights are granted an injunction will not issue to restrain another railroad from laying tracks in the same street. Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. Toledo El. St. R. Co., 9 Ohio Circ. R. 664; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Rosedale St. R. Co., 64 Tex. 80.

1253 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. (U. S.) 507; Long Island Water Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685; Wilmington City R. Co. v. Wilmington & B. S. R. Co. (Del.) 46 Atl. 12; Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago City R.

§ 932. Option to purchase.

Many licenses or contracts made between private individuals and municipal corporations whereby the right is granted to occupy and use the public highways for the purpose of supplying light, water, power or other service, contain an option for the purchase or condemnation of the plant on the part of the municipal authorities at the expiration of a specified time 1254 and

Co., 62 Ill. App. 502; Metropolitan City R. Co. v. Chicago West Division Co., 87 Ill. 317; Louisville City R. Co. v. City of Louisville, 71 Ky. (8 Bush) 415; Cape May, D. B. & S. P. R. Co. v. City of Cape May, 58 N. J. Law, 565, 34 Atl. 397; West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 163, 35 Atl. 49; People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 18 N. E. 692, 2 L. R. A. 255; In re Board of Water Com'rs of Village of White Plains, 71 App. Div. 544, 76 N. Y. Supp. 11. The rule applied to a nonexclusive license or privilege. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Philadelphia Belt Line R. Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 625.

1254 Long Island Water Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685; National Water-works Co. v. Kansas City (C. C. A.) 62 Fed. 853, 27 L. R. A. 827; Fergus Falls Water Co. v. City of Fergus Falls, 65 Fed. 586; Newburyport Water Co. v. City of Newburyport, 103 Fed. 584; City of Greenville V. Greenville Water Co., 125 Ala. 625, 27 So. 764; Stein v. McGrath, 128 Ala. 175, 30 So. 792; Thomas v. City of Grand Junction, 13 Colo. App. 80, 56 Pac. 665. A city is not bound to purchase a water plant in preference to erecting one of its own through the reservation and grant of a franchise the option to purchase by it.

Burlington Water Co. v. Woodward, 49 lowa, 58; Crescent City

Gas Light Co. v. New Orleans Gas Light Co., 27 La. Ann. 138; Rockport Water Co. v. Inhabitants of Rockport, 161 Mass. 279, 37 N. E. 168. The city authorized to purchase plant on payment of actual cost. Hudson Elec. Light Co. v. Inhabitants of Hudson, 163 Mass. 346, 40 N. E. 109; Long v. City of Duluth, 49 Minn. 280, 51 N. W. 913; State v. City of Newark, 54 N. J. Law, 62, 23 Atl. 129. Option for purchase assumed and held capable of being exercised at any time. Ziegler v. Chapin, 59 Hun, 214, 13 N. Y. Supp. 783. An option giving the right to the public authorities to acquire property or franchises by right of eminent domain within a specified time, expires after the lapse of that time.

In re Board of Water Com'rs of Village of White Plains, 71 App. Div. 544, 76 N. Y. Supp. 11; Syracuse Water Co. v. City of Syracuse, 116 N. Y. 167, 22 N. E. 381, 5 L. R. A. 546. An option to purchase it was held but did not impose on the city any exclusive duty in this respect; or could lawfully supply itself with water from other sources. City of Chillicothe v. Logan Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 8 Ohio N. P. 88. This right is given by Ohio Rev. St. § 2485. Philipsburg Water Co. v. Philipsburg Borough, 203 Pa. 562, 53 Atl. 347; North Springs Water Co. v. City of Tacoma, 21 Wash.

« AnteriorContinuar »