Rochester Railway Company v. City of Rochester
Decision Date | 25 March 1907 |
Docket Number | No. 156,156 |
Citation | 51 L.Ed. 784,27 S.Ct. 469,205 U.S. 236 |
Parties | ROCHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. CITY OF ROCHESTER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff in error, a street surface railroad corporation, hereinafter called the Rochester Railroad, to recover $18,274.02, the expense of making new pavements of two streets within the space between the tracks, the rails of the tracks, and 2 feet in width outside the tracks of the railroad. The action was brought under § 98 of chapter 39 of the General Laws of New York, which was enacted in 1890, and is as follows:
Every street surface railroad corporation, so long as it shall continue to use any of its tracks in any street, avenue, or public place, in any city or village, shall have and keep in permanent repair that portion of such street, avenue, or public place between its tracks, the rails of its tracks, and 2 feet in width outside of its tracks, under the supervision of the proper local authorities, and whenever required by them to do so, and in such manner as they may prescribe. In case of the neglect of any such corporation to make pavements or repairs after the expiration of thirty days' notice to do so the local authorities may make the same at the expense of such corporation.
The Rochester Railroad was incorporated on February 25, 1890, under a law of New York enacted May 6, 1884. New York laws 1884, chap. 252. That law authorized the formation of street surface railroad corporations and provided that they should 'have all the powers and privileges granted, and be subject to all the liabilities imposed, by this act.' Among the liabilities was that imposed by § 9 of the act, which is as follows:
Section 18 of the act provides that 'all acts and parts of acts, whether general or special, inconsistent with this act, are hereby repealed, but nothing in this act shall . . . interfere with or repeal or invalidate any rights heretofore acquired under the laws of this state by any horse railroad company, or affect or repeal any right of any existing street surface railroad company to construct, extend, operate, and maintain its road in accordance with the terms and provisions of its charter and the acts amendatory thereof.'
The Rochester Railroad Company was incorporated for the purpose of acquiring the property of the Rochester City & Brighton Railroad Company, hereinafter called the Brighton Railroad. The Brighton Railroad was incorporated March 5, 1868, under a general law of the state of New York. Laws of 1850, chap. 140. That law contained no provision respecting the repairs of streets, and, differences having arisen between the Brighton Railroad and the city, as to the extent of the burden of such repairs properly to be borne by the railroad, they joined in an application to the legislature for the enactment of a law which should regulate that and other subjects. Such a law was enacted February 27, 1869, and its 5th section was as follows:
'Said company shall put, keep, and maintain the surface of the streets inside the rails of its tracks in good and thorough repair, under the direction of the committee on streets and bridges of the common council of said city of Rochester; but, whenever any of said streets are, by ordinance or otherwise, permanently improved, said company shall not be required to make any part or portion of such improvement, or bear any part of the expense thereof, but it shall make its rails in such street or streets conform to the grade thereof.' [Laws of 1869, chap. 34.]
On the 25th day of February, 1890, the Brighton Railroad duly executed and delivered a lease of its property, franchises, rights, and privileges, for the unexpired term of its charter, to the Rochester Railroad, which accepted the lease and took possession of the property. Subsequently, in the same year, the Rochester Railroad acquired the entire capital stock of the Brighton Railroad. The acquisition of stock was in pursuance of the authority contained in chapter 254 of the Laws of New York of 1867, which, as amended by chapter 503 of the Laws of 1879, is as follows:
Subsequently the Rochester Railroad duly obtained permission to convert the road into an electric trolley road, expended large sums of money in doing so, and, in the acquisition of the stock of the Brighton Railroad and the conversion of its road into an electric road, relied upon the provisions of the act of 1869 as a contract exempting it, with respect to the streets covered by the tracks of the Brighton Railroad, from other street repairs than those therein described. The city acquiesced in this view until October, 1898, when, upon the suit of an owner of adjoining property, the court of appeals held that, under § 9 of the act of 1884, and § 98 of chapter 39 of the General Laws, which were regarded as substantially the same, the Rochester Railroad was bound to bear the expense of a new pavement on* the location acquired from the Brighton Railroad. Conway v. Rochester, 157 N. Y. 33, 51 N. E. 395. Subsequently, the city repaved two streets which were within the location acquired and operated by the Brighton Railroad, prior to the passage of the act of 1884, and, in obedience to the decision in the Conway Case, assessed against the Rochester Railroad its share of the expense of pavement, and brought this action to recover the amount of the assessment. It was set up in defense of the action that, by the act of 1869, the state of New York had entered into an inviolable contract with the Brighton Railroad, exempting it from the expense of pavement, that the contract had passed with the property of the Brighton Railroad to the Rochester Railroad, and that the assessment was in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The contentions of the Rochester Railroad were denied by the court of appeals of New York (182 N. Y. 116, 70 L.R.A. 773, 74 N. E. 953), which held, first, that the statute mentioned did not constitute a contract between the state and the railroad company, and, second, that if it did, the exemption granted by the statute was personal to the Brighton Railroad, and did not pass to the Rochester Railroad. The case was remanded to the supreme court and a judgment entered pursuant to the remittitur from the court of appeals, and by writ of error that judgment is brought here for review.
Messers. Charles J. Bissell, William C. Trull, and Joseph S. Clark for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 241-243 intentionally omitted] Messrs. William W. Webb and Benjamin B. Cunningham for defendant in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Moody:
[Argument of Counsel from pages 243-245 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Moody, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:
By the judgment of the highest court of the state of New York, the city of Rochester was allowed to recover from the Rochester Railroad, a street surface railroad corporation, the cost of laying new pavements on the parts of two streets which lay between the tracks, the rails of the tracks, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coleman v. Hagey
...v. Am. Tob. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352, 36 Atl. 971; Miller v. Am. Tob. Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 847, 42 Atl. 1117; Rochester R. Co. v. Rochester, 205 U. S. 236, 256, 27 Sup. Ct. 469, 51 L. Ed. 784; Willamette Mfg. Co. v. Bank, 119 U. S. 191, 198, 7 Sup. Ct. 137, 30 L. Ed. 384; Great Western M. & M. Co......
-
State v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...charter or by the consolidation of prior corporations under the act of 1869.’ It was reaffirmed in Rochester Ry. Co. v. Rochester, 205 U. S. 236, 27 Sup. Ct. 469, 51 L. Ed. 784, and again in Yazoo Ry. Co. v. Vicksburg, 209 U. S. 358, 28 Sup. Ct. 510, 52 L. Ed. 833. We are speaking now of th......
-
Washington University v. Baumann
...sanction. This latter view is now the settled doctrine of the United States Supreme Court: Rochester Railway Co. v. Rochester, 205 U.S. 236, 247-253, 51 L. Ed. 784, 788, 27 Sup. Ct. 469, 472; Wright v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 216 U.S. 420, 432, 54 L. Ed. 544, 30 Sup. Ct. 242. These ......
-
City of Parkersburg v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
... ... of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company situated in the ... city. The right to be perpetually free from city ... 15 L.R.A. 860, 29 Am.St.Rep. 750; Richmond v. Virginia ... Railway & Power Co., 124 Va. 529, 98 S.E. 691; 3 ... Dillon's Municipal ... enjoyed by the mortgagor. Rochester Railway Co. v ... Rochester, 205 U.S. 236, 27 Sup.Ct. 469, 51 L.Ed ... ...