Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. v. City of South Bend
Citations
- 227 U.S. 544
- 33 S. Ct. 303
- 57 L. Ed. 633
- 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2330
Syllabus
<p>What the'contract alleged to be impaired by subsequent legislation is, is a question which this court is bound to determine for itself independent of decisions of the state court. Northern Pacific Ry. v. ' Duluth, 208 U. S. 590.</p> <p>An ordinance conferring a street franchise, passed by a municipality under legislative authority, creates a valid contract binding and enforceable according to its terms. Louisville v. Cumberland-Telephone Co., 225 U. S. 430.</p> <p>While a validly granted franchise to use streets of a-municipality may be regulated as to its use by subsequent.ordinances, or repealed if its operation becomes injurious to public health or morals, the franchise,</p> <p>' if not injurious to public health or morals, cannot be repealed and destroyed.</p> <p>The police power of the State cannot be bartered away; but it cannot be used to abrogate a valid and innocuous franchise.</p> <p>Tracks laid in a street under legislative authority'becottie legalized, and when used in the customary manner cannot be treated as unlawful either in maintenance or operation. •</p> <p>Inconvenience natural to the proper use of a properly granted franchise cannot be made the basis of exercising the police power to destroy . the franchise.</p> <p>The power to regulate implies the existence and not the destruction of • the thing to be controlled.</p> <p>A franchise to maintain and operate a double track railway is an entirety, and if valid the municipality cannot abrogate it as to one of the tracks, either as to all or as to a part of the distance for which it , was granted. Baltimore v. Trust Company, 166 U. S. 673, distinguished.</p> <p>The contract clause prevents a State from impairing the obligation of a contract, whether it acts through the legislature or a municipality exercising delegated legislative power.</p> <p>The ordinance of South Bend, Indiana, of 1868, .permitting a railway company to lay a double track through one of its streets, and which had been availed of
Judges: Day, Hughes, Lamar, Pitney
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.