Adam v. New York Trust Co.
| Citation | 37 F.2d 826 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5799.,5799. |
| Parties | ADAM v. NEW YORK TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
R. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, La. (William R. Kinsella, of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellant.
Charles Rosen, Stamps Farrar, and Edwin C. Hollins, all of New Orleans, La. (Alfred C. Kammer, Justin V. Wolff, and Louis L. Rosen, all of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by Michael Adam from a preliminary injunction restraining him, and more than 100 others, from transporting within the city of New Orleans passengers for hire in jitneys and automobiles without first complying with an ordinance of that city. The injunction was issued upon a bill of complaint by the New York Trust Company, trustee of bonds amounting to $12,946,700, bearing 4½ per cent. interest, of the New Orleans Public Service, Inc., which operates a system of street railways in New Orleans, and by two individual holders of bonds. The bonds were secured by a mortgage upon the property, permit, franchise, revenue, and income of the public service corporation.
The bill contains averments, which were supported by affidavit, to the following effect: The public service corporation's street cars are being operated under its permit and franchise over more than 100 miles of track, and its investment exceeds $25,000,000. About 1,300 jitneys were being operated on the streets of the city in competition with the street cars of the public service corporation. These jitneys run ahead of the street cars at excessive speed, stop suddenly and pick up people waiting at regular stopping places to become passengers on the street cars. The public service corporation's average daily loss because of this competition amounts to $6,500 or about $5 for each jitney. Appellant was operating, and unless enjoined would continue to operate, one of these jitneys in the manner described, and was depriving the public service corporation daily of about $5 revenue. The loss of revenue resulting from the operation of jitneys seriously impaired the value of the securities held by appellee. Appellant and the other owners of jitneys had failed to comply with the provisions of a city ordinance which require every vehicle not operated on rails, before being permitted to engage in transporting passengers for hire, to be registered, and licensed to operate on a particular route at stated rates of fare. The owner is required by the ordinance to give bond in the sum of $5,000 for each such vehicle as protection against damage to person or property.
It was disclosed by undisputed evidence at the hearing that appellant and the others proceeded against had failed to comply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex inf. Wilkerson ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co.
...subsequent quo warranto proceedings in the Circuit Court of Scott County. Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Kalamazoo, 182 F. 865; Adams v. New York Trust Co., 37 F.2d 826. C. Westhues, C., concurs; Bohling, C., concurs in result. OPINION COOLEY This action is based upon an information in quo warr......
-
Tilton v. Model Taxi Corporation
...App.Div. 737, 182 N.Y.S. 283, affirmed, 229 N.Y. 570, 128 N.E. 215; People's Transit Co. v. Henshaw, 8 Cir., 20 F.2d 87; Adam v. New York Trust Co., 5 Cir., 37 F. 2d 826; Wichita Transp. Co. v. People's Taxicab Co., 140 Kan. 40, 34 P.2d 550, 94 A.L.R. 771; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Dei......
-
Capital Transit Co. v. Safeway Trails
...which is legally protectible. Frost v. Corporation Commission, 1929, 278 U.S. 515, 49 S.Ct. 235, 73 L. Ed. 483; Adam v. New York Trust Co., 1930, 5 Cir., 37 F.2d 826, certiorari granted, 281 U.S. 715, 50 S.Ct. 460, 74 L.Ed. 1135, 1931, certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted, 282 U.S.......
-
Burton v. Matanuska Valley Lines
...550, 94 A.L.R. 771; Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co. v. Grassmeyer, 102 Wash. 482, 173 P. 504, L.R. A.1918F, 469; Adam v. New York Trust Co., 5 Cir., 37 F.2d 826. Furthermore, there appears to be substantial authority for the proposition that the holder of a non-exclusive public util......