City Railway Co. v. Citizens' Street Railroad
Citations
- 166 U.S. 557
- 17 S. Ct. 653
- 41 L. Ed. 1114
- 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2049
Syllabus
<p>The Citizens’ Street Railway Company of Indianapolis was organized in 1864 under an act of the legislature of Indiana of 1861, authorizing such a company to be “ a body politic and corporation in perpetuity.” January 18, 1864, the common council of that city passed an ordinance authorizing the company to lay tracks upon designated streets, and providing that “the right to operate said railway shall extend to the full time of thirty years,” during which time the city authorities were not to extend to other companies privileges which would impair or destroy the rights-so granted. In April, 1880, the common council amended the original grant “ so as to read thirty-seven years where the same now reads thirty years.” The company, desiring to issue bonds' to run for a longer period than the thirty years, had, for that purpose, petitioned the common council for an extension to forty-five years. The city government was willing to extend to thirty-seven years, and this was accepted by the company as a compromise. On the 23d of April, 1888, the road and franchises were sold and conveyed to the Citizens’ Street Railroad Com-' pany, which sale and transfer were duly approved by the city government. December 18, 1889, a further ordinance authorized the use of electric power by the company, and provided how it should be applied. In accordance with its provisions the company, at great expense, built a power house, and changed its plant to an electric system. In April, 1893, the city council, claiming that the rights of the company would expire in ' thirtyyears from January 18, 1864, granted to another corporation called the City Railway Company the' right to lay tracks to be operated by electricity in a large number of streets then occupied by the tracks of the Citizens’ Street Railroad Company, whereupon a bill was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States by the Street Railroad Company against the City Railway Company, to enjoin it from interrupting or disturbing the ra
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that, for a contracts claim, “[a]ll that is neces- sary to establish the jurisdiction of the court is to show that the complainant had, or claimed in good faith to have, a contract with the city, which the latter had at- tempted to impair”
- finding a party’s conduct constitutes acceptance of a franchise agreement
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brown, Gray, Harlan, Siiiras, White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.