Emerson v. Forest City Ry.

Citations

• 18 Ohio C.C. Dec. 683
• 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 478
• 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 299

Syllabus

<p>STREET RAILWAYS.</p> <p>Marvin, Winch and Henry, JJ.</p> <p>City may Consent to Granting or Street Railway Franchise as Owner of Abutting Property.</p> <p>An injunction prayed for against an exercise of its franchise along a certain street by a street railway company will not be' granted on the ground that the necessary consents of the owners of a majority of the abutting frontage have not been obtained, the precise ground being, that the city, as owner of a large portion of the frontage in question, may not exercise its privilege as owner of the abutting land and also act as the grantor of the franchise, and that without the city’s consent as landowner, a majority of the frontage has not been obtained. Revised Statutes 3439 (Lan. 5521), as well as Rev. Stat. 1536-185 (Lan. 3764) plainly give the right to consent, to the abutting owners, and the exercise of such a dual capacity by the city is not sufficiently contrary to public policy to warrant the courts in overriding the plain letter of the law.</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]</p>