Iron R. Co., Robinson v., (U. S.).. Jackson v. Ackroyd, (Colo.)... 383 94 Manahan v. Steinway & H. P. R. Co., (N. Y.).......... 194 449 26 v. La Moure County, (N. Dak.).... Jackson County, Board of Com'rs Jennings, Fort Worth & Rio Kansas Central R. Co. v. Board of Kansas City, St. Joseph & C. B. R. Co., Dimmitt v., (Mo.)...... 699 v. St. Joseph Terminal R. Co., (Mo.). Kansas, N. & D. R. Co. v. Mahler. (Kan.)... Kemble, Appeal of, (Pa.).. Kemp, Mower v., (La.)... Kentucky (Commonwealth) Massavillo v. Nashville & Knoxville R. Co., (Tenn.).. Messick v. Midland R. Co., (Ind.).. 512 Metropolitan El. R. Co., Kane v., (N. Y.)..... 137 Midland R. Co., Porter z., (Ind.). 70 Miller v. Swann & Billups, (Ala). 459 Mills, Detroit City R. Co. (Mich.). Millvale, (Borough) v. Evergreen R. Co., (Pa.). 137 608 26 219 166 Morgan's Louisiana & Texas R. & 51 S. S. Co., Provost v., (La.).. III Mower v. Kemp, (La.).. 480 Muller v. Southern Pac. B. R. Co., (Cal)... 637 Musser v. McRae, (Minn.)...... 458 Sioux City & Northern R. Co., V.. :.. 323 v. Holloway, (Ind.).. Wichita & Colorado R. Co. (Kan.).... (C. C.).... Updegrove v. Pennsylvania S. V. R. Co., (Pa.).... 494 Vermont & Canada R. Co. v. Vermont Central R. Co., (Vt.).. 646 Vermont Central R. Co., Vermont & Canada R. Co. v., (Vt.) 646 Virginia Midland R. Co., Diffendal v., (Va.).... 496 Vose v. Newport St. R. Co., (R. I.) 91 Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific R. Co., Central Trust Co. v., (C. C.) 301 v. McKissock, (U. S.). Warner v. People's St. R. Co. of Luzerne Co., (Pa.)... 261 195 .448, 460 Waterbury Horse R. Co., Farrell v., (Conn.)... 207 Watjen v. Green, (N. J.). 343 457 Watson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.).... 543 488 .33, 260 Westcott v. New York & N. E. R. Texas & New Orleans R. Co., Baugh v., (Tex.)..... v. Cozzens, (La.).. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Pensacola & Atlantic R. Co., (Fla.) 704 State ex rel. Clapp v. Sioux City & Northern R. Co., (Minn.).... 257 Strickler v. Midland R. Co., (Ind.) Terre Haute & Logansport R. Co. v. Harris, (Ind.). Western Paving & Supply Co. v. 446 53 513 Wilkins, In re, (N. Y.). 157 Williams v. Brooklyn El. R. Co., . (N. Y.)....... 149 105 Thomas v. Citizens' Passenger R. Williamson, Hot Springs R. Co. v., (U. S.).... 59 Co., (Pa.)... Trimmer, New York, Susquehanna & W. R. Co. v., (N. J.). Union Depot St. R. & T. Co., Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v., (Minn.). Trenton v. Trenton Horse R. Co., (N. J.)..... 196 Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Forsythe, (C. C.).... 457 26 Wood v. Guarantee Trust & S. D. Co., (U. S.).. 352 585 488 Worcester, Nashua & Rochester .53, 74 THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RAILROAD CASES. VOLUME. XLVI. ST. LOUIS R. Co. .V. SOUTHERN R. Co. (Missouri Supreme Court, Division No. 2, March 31, 1891.) Street Railway-Use of Tracks of Other Companies-Right of Public to Grant. The public has the reserved right to grant the use of street railway tracks to companies other than those constructing them, upon making just compensation. Same Same By the Charter of the City of St. Louis, of 1876, any street railway company has the right to run its cars over the track of another company in that city, upon payment of just compensation for the use thereof, under such regulations as the municipal assembly may by ordi nance prescribe; and the municipal assembly has the power to pass ordinances to enforce this right. Same-Amendment of Franchise-Company Subjecting Itself to Ordinances. A street railway company whose charter antedated that of the city, and which was not, accordingly, subject to the above provision, as a condition to the grant of additional franchises, agreed to conform to any ordinance then existing, or that might thereafter be passed, enforcing the above provisions of the city charter. Held, that the company made its right to operate its road subject to the provisions of the charter, and conceded the right of other companies of the city to use its tracks, and became subject to an ordinance subsequently passed providing the mode of ascertaining the compensation. Same Compensation for Use of Tracks-Appeal to Circuit Court. If the award of commissioners, provided for by the city ordinance as compensation for the use of tracks, is not satisfactory to the company owning them, it can either adopt the special mode of procedure by appeal to the circuit court as provided in the ordinance, or may apply to the court under its general jurisdiction. The city had authority to provide in such ordinance such special remedy for the party aggrieved, by way of a review of the award of the commissioners by the circuit court. Relation Between City and Street Railway Company.-The relation between the city of St. Louis and the St. Louis R. Co., by reason of the passage of certain ordinances by the city, and the acceptance of the same by the railroad company, held to be contractual as contradistinguished from legal. GANTT, P. J., dissenting. |