Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

for the purpose of converting a grant of a municipality which is, upon its face, a mere license, into a contract for a stated period or in perpetuity, nevertheless that rule is subject to a well-defined limitation or exception which, as presented in the argument in various forms, may be stated as follows: That where general powers are conferred and duties are imposed upon a corporation which, from their nature and essential character, presuppose the right to exert them or the duty to perform them during a specified time or in perpetuity, and a particular power or right is conferred on the corporation which has a necessary relation thereto or an essential connection therewith, although such particular power or right may not have expressly taken the form of contract or grant for a stated time or in perpetuity, nevertheless such result may be implied by considering the essential relation which the particular power or right granted bears to the general powers and duties possessed and the necessary connection between the two for the purpose of giving a common duration to both. Louisville v. Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 224 U. S. 649, 663, 56 L. ed. 934, 940, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 572; Owensboro v. Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 230 U. S. 5S, 65, 66, 57 L. ed. | 1389, 1393, 1394, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988; Boisé Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boisé City, 230 U. S. 84, 91, 57 L. ed. 1400,

1406, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 997; New York Electric Lines Co. v. Empire City Subway Co. 235 U. S. 179, 191–194, 59 L. ed. 184, 191, 192, L.R.A. —, —, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 906.

But while the general rule is well founded and the exception or limitation by which it is asserted to be qualified is well settled, it has no relation to the case in hand, since the particular action of the city in question concerned a mere permission to exercise a facility as a license, given long after the creation of the railway corporation, and not inherently or in any degree necessarily controlling its power to discharge its corporate attributes. Indeed, so much is this the case on the face of the situation here presented that it becomes apparent that to apply the limitation to a case like this would destroy the general rule itself.

The contention that even though this be the case, in as much as the railroad had for a long time operated the spur track on the sidewalk and used it for its general railroad purposes with the assumed knowledge and assent of the city, thereby the existence of a contractual and permanent right must be inferred, is manifestly without merit. Indeed, it amounts to saying that possession under a mere license was capable of causing that which was revocable and precarious to become contractual and permanent. Affirmed.

FOLLOWING ARE MEMORANDA

OF

CASES DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1916,

WITHOUT OPINIONS AND NOT ELSEWHERE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN THIS EDITION

[blocks in formation]

JOHN Z. LOWE, JR., Collector of Internal | FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY,
Revenue, Plaintiff in Error, v. SAMUEL T.
HUBBARD et al. [No. 309.]

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

The Attorney General for plaintiff in

error.

Messrs. David Hunter Miller and Gordon Auchincloss for defendant in error.

October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in

error.

JOHN Z. LOWE, JR., Collector of United States Internal Revenue, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. STEPHEN M. WELD et al. [No. 388.]

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

The Attorney General for plaintiff in

error.

Messrs. David Hunter Miller and Gordon Auchincloss for defendants in error.

October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in

error.

STATE OF MINNESOTA, Complainant, v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN. [No. 5, Original.]
Messrs. George T. Simpson and C. Louis
Weeks for complainant.

No appearance, for respondent.
October 9, 1916. Dismissed on motion of
counsel for the complainant.

ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE OF
KANSAS EX REL. S. M. BREWSTER, Attor-
ney General, etc., et al. [No. 137.]

Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. R. HUDSON BURR et al., etc. [Nos. 224, 225.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.

Messrs. Frederick C. Bryan and Alexander St. Clair-Abrams for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error.

WALTER BOWEN & COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff in Error, v. State of WASHINGTON. [No. 238.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.

Messrs. W. H. Bogle and Carroll B. Graves for plaintiff in error.

Mr. W. V. Tanner for defendant in error. October 9, 1916. Dismissed per stipulation.

S. B. HOVEY et al., Receivers, etc., Plaintiffs in Error, v. FAYETTE TANKERSLEY. [No. 261.]

In Error to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas.

Mr. Herbert S. Garrett for plaintiffs in

error.

No appearance for defendant in error. October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiffs in

error.

In Error to the Supreme Court of the SERAPION CRIBE et al., Appellants, v. R. E.

State of Kansas.

Mr. Robert Dunlap for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendants in error. October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on authority of counsel for the plaintiff in

error.

TERRE HAUTE, INDIANAPOLIS, & EASTERN
TRACTION COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v.
ELMIRA C. WEDDLE, Administratrix, etc.
[No. 199.]

In Error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Indiana.

MANLY et al. [No. 352.]

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands.

Mr. A. D. Gibbs for appellants.
No appearance for appellees.
October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs,
on motion of counsel for the appellants.

JOHN GRANT LYMAN, Appellant, v. THOMAS D. MCCARTHY, Marshal, etc. [No. 448.] Appeal from the District Court of the Messrs. Ferdinand Winter and W. H. United States for the Southern District of Latta for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Richard M. Milburn for defendant in error.

October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in

error.

New York.

Messrs. Henry A. Wise and Frederick S. Tyler for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

October 9, 1916. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellant.

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COM-| SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL ARCANUM, PANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. C. ELLEN- Petitioner, v. SUE B. BEHREND. [No. 665.]

WOOD. [No. 517.]

[blocks in formation]

MEMPHIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. J. W. BOBO, Administrator, etc. [No. 622.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit..

GRINNELL WASHING MACHINE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. E. E. JOHNSON COMPANY. [No. 675.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for

Messrs. Luke E. Wright and Roane War- the Seventh Circuit. ing for petitioner.

Messrs. Charles C. Linthicum and Melville

Messrs. Caruthers Ewing and Ike W. Church for petitioner. Crabtree for respondent.

October 16, 1916. Granted.

Messrs. Taylor E. Brown and Clarence E. Mehlhope for respondent. October 16, 1916. Granted.

MEMPHIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. S. C. MOORE, Administrator, etc. [No. 623.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

JOHN J. MEYERS et al., Petitioners,
UNITED STATES. [No. 506.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for

Messrs. Luke E. Wright and Roane War- the Second Circuit. ing for petitioner.

Messrs. Caruthers Ewing and Ike W. Crabtree for respondent.

October 16, 1916. Granted.

Mr. Gilbert D. Lamb for petitioners. Mr. Solicitor General Davis for respondent. October 16, 1916. Denied.

MRS. LAURA L. BUNCH, Petitioner, v. J. S. MALONEY, as Trustee, etc. [No. 639.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Messrs. W. E. Hemingway, G. B. Rose, J. F. Loughborough, and V. M. Miles for petitioner.

Mr. J. M. Moore for respondent.
October 16, 1916. Granted.

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CARL KILMER. [No. 513.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Messrs. Daniel W. Baker, Frederick M. Pelzman, and David Wiener for petitioner. Mr. Walter W. Magee for respondent. October 16, 1916. Denied.

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Pe- | CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST COMPANY, Trustee, titioner, v. EDGAR A. EMENS, as Executor,

etc. [No. 514.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Messrs. Daniel W. Baker, Frederick M. Pelzman, and David Wiener for petitioner. Mr. Walter W. Magee for respondent. October 16, 1916. Denied.

etc., Petitioner, v. FRED J. ZUTTERMEISTER. [No. 579.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Messrs. Charles L. Bartlett and George Gillette for petitioner.

Mr. Harry C. Kinne for respondent.
October 16, 1916. Denied.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »