Missouri Kansas Interurban Railway Company v. City of Olathe

Citation32 S.Ct. 47,222 U.S. 191,56 L.Ed. 156,222 U.S. 187
Decision Date04 December 1911
Docket NumberNo. 727,727
PartiesMISSOURI & KANSAS INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY, William B. Strang, F. R. Ogg, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. CITY OF OLATHE, Kansas
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Frank Doster, A. F. Hunt, Jr., A. M. Harvey, and J. E. Addington for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Stephen H. Allen for defendant in error.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Justice Hughes:

Motion to dismiss. The city of Olathe, Kansas, granted to the railway company, plaintiff in error, the privilege of using certain streets for its railway, and the railway company agreed to pay therefor the sum of $9,000 when the road was completed. This suit was brought in October, 1908, to recover this amount, and the railway company defended upon the ground that the road had not been completed, and hence that the money was not due. It appeared that the company had built and was operating its railway over the entire route save only a certain 'turn-out,' the construction of which the city prevented. On the trial, evidence was received, over objection, of a resolution adopted by the mayor and common council on March 21, 1910, pending the suit, which purported to set aside their approval of the plans and specifications so far as the 'turn-out' was concerned. But the decision of the court, which went for the city, was not in any sense based on that. The trial court found the facts to be as follows:

'The map or ground plan of the said proposed railway contained a red line indicating the main line of the said railway, over the streets of said city, and in addition to said main railway the Y on Santa Fe street was indicated on said map. The said map also contained a red line, which indicated a contemplated turn-out on East Park street, near the State Institution. The specifications filed with the city clerk by the defendant company specifies in detail the work therein named, but does not mention the 'turn-out' above mentioned. The mayor and members of the city council at the time did not know that the red line above mentioned indicated the turn-out claimed by the defendant.

'On August 28th, 1907, the city brought an injunction suit restraining the defendant company from laying the said switch or turn-out above mentioned, which suit is still pending.

'The said railway company laid its main tracks, together with the Y on Santa Fe street, and commenced operating cars over the entire distance from some time in the month of August, 1907, and has continued to use said track down to the present time, excepting the period of a few months when the operation of said railway was interrupted by changing from a motor car service to an electric service.

'The turn-out above mentioned is not a necessary part of the construction of said road in order to reasonably operate the same throughout said city, and to the terminus, as provided in said ordinance.

'The road as contemplated by said franchise was substantially completed within the meaning of said franchise in the month of August, 1907.'

Judgment, entered accordingly, was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and the grounds of its decision are thus stated in its opinion:

'In brief, the question involved is whether the work to be done by the company under the franchise can be regarded as having been completed, in such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State of Washington v. Maricopa County, Ariz.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 14, 1945
    ...30 S.Ct. 40, 54 L.Ed. 144, 147; Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438, 31 S.Ct. 57, 54 L. Ed. 1099; Missouri & Kansas Interurban Railway Co. v. Olathe, 222 U.S. 187, 32 S.Ct. 47, 56 L.Ed. 156." In Bacon v. Texas, 163 U.S. 207, 216, 16 S.Ct. 1023, 1027, 41 L.Ed. 132, the rule is stated thus: "......
  • Weast v. Budd
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1960
    ...185, 32 S.Ct. 46, 56 L.Ed. 155; Edson v. City of Olathe, 82 Kan. 4, 107 P. 539, 36 L.R.A.,N.S., 865; Missouri & K. I. Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe, 222 U.S. 187, 32 S.Ct. 47, 56 L.Ed. 156). It is unnecessary to write a treatise on the law of eminent domain. Suffice it to say eminent domain is ......
  • Louisiana Railway and Navigation Company v. Martin Behrman
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 30, 1914
    ...1023; Fisher v. New Orleans, 218 U. S. 438, 440, 54 L. ed. 1099, 1100, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57; Missouri & K. Interurban R. Co. v. Olathe, 222 U. S. 187, 190, 56 L. ed. 156, 158, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47; Cross Lake Shooting & Fishing Club v. Louisiana, 224 U. S. 632, 639, 56 L. ed. 924, 928, 32 Sup......
  • John Martin v. West
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1911
    ... ... ed. 836, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 509; Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 49 L. ed. 546, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT