Finch v. Riverside & Arlington Railway

Citations

• 87 Cal. 597
• 25 P. 765
• 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1030

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain — Compensation — Use of Streets — Dedication — Street-railway. — The dedication of a street to public use authorizes any ordinary use for street purposes; and the use of a street for the tracks of a street-car company is of this class, and may be authorized by the city authorities, without compensation to the owner of the fee of the street. '</p> <p>Street-car Company —Position of Track — Franchise — Ejectment.— The tracks of a street-car company should he laid as nearly as practicable in the middle of the street. If the franchise does not indicate the precise position of the track, and it is not as nearly as practicable to the middle of the street, the track is an unauthorized obstruction, and the owner of the fee of the street may maintain ejectment against the company.</p> <p>Id. — Public Convenience. — The mere fact that it is more convenient to the traveling public to have the track on the side of the street, and that it obstructs travel a little less than it would do in the center of the street, is not a sufficient reason for not complying with the law. Trustee— Municipal Corporation —Interest — Franchise. —When an application for a franchise was referred to a committee of two, and upon their favorable report the franchise was granted, the fact that one of the committee was a subscriber to the stock of the company for whose benefit the franchise was granted renders the franchise void.</p> <p>Id. — Corporation. — It makes no difference that the corporation for whose benefit the franchise was granted was not yet formed; it is sufficient that the franchise was granted to a committee of subscribers for the benefit of the corporation.</p> <p>Presumption —■ Identity. — Identity of persons is presumed from identity of name. Instance.</p>