Chicago Union Traction Co. v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 25 October 1902
• Parties: CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO. v. CITY OF CHICAGO (three cases).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

199 Ill. 484

65 N.E. 451

CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO.

v.CITY OF CHICAGO (three cases). ^*

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 25, 1902.

Appeals from criminal court, Cook county; F. Q. Ball, Judge.

Three actions by the city of Chicago against the Chicago Union Traction Company. From judgments for plaintiff in each of the actions, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Gwynn Garnett (W. W. Gurley, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles M. Walker, Corp. Counsel, and Henry Schofield and Clarence N. Goodwin, Assts. Corp. Counsel, for appellee.

Eleven actions were commenced by appellee, the city of Chicago, against appellant, the Chicago Union Traction Company, before a justice of the peace of the city of Chicago, in December, 1901, to recover penalties for the refusal by appellant to give to passengers on certain of its street car lines transfer tickets entitling such passengers to rides upon certain other of its street car lines. The first of these actions was to recover a penalty for the refusal by appellant to give to a passenger on its North Clark street car line, running and operated in the North division of the city of Chicago, a transfer ticket entitling such passenger to a ride upon its Madison street car line, running and operated in the West division of the city of Chicago. The second of these actions was brought to recover a penalty for the refusal by appellant to give to a passenger on its Madison street car line, running and operated in the West division of the city of Chicago, a transfer ticket entitling such passenger to a ride upon its North Clark street car line, running and operated in the North division of the city. The third of these actions was brought to recover a penalty for the refusal by appellant to give to a passenger on its Van Buren street car line a transfer ticket entitling such passenger to a ride upon its Halsted street car line, both of said lastnamed car lines (one on Van Buren and the other on Halsted street) running and being operated in the West division of the city of Chicago. It is conceded that the street car lines thus running upon the North and West sides, involved in the three actions thus named, are operated by the appellant, the Chicago Union Traction Company. These three actions, involving principally questions of law, and not questions of fact, were taken by this court at the June term, 1902, under one agenda number. They involve substantially the same questions, and are considered together as though they were one case. The other eight actions relate to transfer tickets from and to other lines than those already mentioned, alleged by the appellee to be operated by the appellant, and involve certain disputed questions of fact, not in controversy in the first three cases above named. Accordingly the eight actions, excepting and excluding the first three already named, were taken by the court at the June term under one agenda number, as one case, and are hereafter considered separately in another opinion.

All the actions are based upon sections 1723 and 1725 of the Revised Code of Chicago, passed by the common council of that city on April 8, 1897; being a mere re-enactment of an ordinance passed by said council on June 26, 1890. They have been brought for the purpose of testing the question as to the liability of appellant for refusing such transfers. In each of the three actions first above named, judgment was entered by the justice against appellant for $50 and costs, and from each of said judgments appeals were duly prayed and perfected to the criminal court of Cook county. In the criminal court of Cook county, jury was waived by agreement, and the causes were submitted to the court for trial on February 10, 1902. On March 19, 1902, the court found the appellant (defendant below) guilty in each of the three cases. In each case on April 7, 1902, judgment was rendered against appellant for $50 and costs, to which appellant then and there excepted. The present appeals are prosecuted from the three judgments, thus entered by the criminal court of Cook county, to this court.

Section 1723 is as follows: ‘The rate of fare to be charged by any person, firm, company or corporation owning, leasing, running or operating street cars or other vehicles for the conveyance of passengers on any street railway within the limits of the city of Chicago for any distance within the city limits, shall not exceed five cents for each passenger over twelve years of age, and half fare for each passenger over seven and under twelve years of age, for one continuous trip, except when such street cars or other vehicles shall be chartered for a specific purpose. And, at any point where any line of any street railway owned, leased or operated by any person, firm or corporation does now or shall hereafter, within the limits of the city of Chicago, join, connect with, cross, intersect or come within a distance of two hundred feet of any other line of street railway owned, leased or operated by the same person, firm, company or corporation, any passenger who shall have paid his fare on any street car or other vehicles run or operated on such first mentioned line shall, on his request, be entitled to demand and receive from the person or persons in charge of such street car or other vehicle upon which he has so paid his fare, a transfer ticket, which transfer ticket shall entitle such passenger, without further charge, to be carried on any other one line adjoining, connecting, crossing and intersecting, as aforesaid, and owned, leased or operated by such person, firm or corporation, for a continuous trip of any distance within the limits of the city of Chicago, if used within one hour after the same is issued at the point or place for which such transfer ticket was issued.’ Section 1725 is as follows: ‘For each and every violation of the provisions of the two last preceding sections, the person, firm, company or corporation owning, leasing or operating said street cars or other vehicles within said city shall be subject to a penalty of not less than $50.00, nor more than $200.00.’ 1 Rev. Code Chicago 1897, pp. 363, 364.

On August 16, 1858, the common council of the city of Chicago passed an ordinance entitled ‘An ordinance authorizing the construction and operation of certain horse railways in the streets of the city of Chicago.’ By section 1 of this ordinance ‘there is hereby granted to Henry Fuller, Franklin Parmelee and Liberty Bigelow, and such other persons as may hereafter become associated with them, and to their executors, administrators and assigns, permission, authority and consent of the common council to lay a single or double track for a railway, with all necessary and convenient tracks for turn-outs, side-tracks and switches, in and along the course of certain streets in the city of Chicago hereinafter mentioned, and to operate railway cars and carriages thereon in the manner, and for the time and upon the conditions hereinafter prescribed: provided, that said tracks shall not be laid within twelve feet of the sidewalks upon any of the streets.’ By section 2 of the ordinance said parties are authorized to lay a single or double track for a railway in and along the course of certain streets therein named, some of them being in the South division of the city of Chicago, and others being in the West division of the city of Chicago. By section 4 it is provided that the common council shall have power at all times to make such regulations as to the rate of speed and time of running said cars or carriages as the public safety and convenience may require. Section 6 of said ordinance is as follows: ‘The rate of fare for any distance shall not exceed five cents, except when cars or carriages shall be chartered for a specific purpose.’ By section 7 it was provided that said parties, their associates and successors should pay one-third of the cost of paving, etc., the streets on which said railways should be constructed, and should keep parts of the streets in good repair and condition, etc. By section 9 it was provided as follows: ‘If the said parties, their associates or successors, shall hereafter become incorporated, the rights and privileges granted to them by virtue of this ordinance shall extend to such corporation for the time and upon the conditions herein prescribed, and when such act of incorporation shall have been obtained, such corporation shall have all the rights and privileges hereby granted, as the successors of said parties without further action of the common council.’ By section 10 it was provided that ‘the right to operate said railways shall extend to the full time of twenty-five years from the passage hereof,’ etc. Sections 3 and 8 of the ordinance of August 16, 1858, may be found in volume 2 of the Special Ordinances of Chicago of 1898, on pages 1042, 1043, and 1044. Section 3 provides that the cars to be used upon the tracks shall be operated with animal power only, and that said railways shall not connect with any other railroad on which other power is used, and no railway car or carriage used upon any other railroad in this state shall be used or passed upon said tracks. Section 8 provides that the rights and privileges granted to said parties shall be forfeited unless said railways shall be commenced and completed within a certain time, etc.

On February 14, 1859, the legislature passed an act entitled ‘An act to promote the construction of horse railways in the city of Chicago.’ By section 1 of this act it is provided ‘that Franklin Parmelee, Liberty Bigelow, Henry Fuller and David A. Gage, and their successors, be, and they are hereby created and constituted a body corporate and politic, by the name of ‘The Chicago City Railway Company,’ for the term of twenty-five years, with all the powers and authority incident to corporations, for the purposes hereinafter mentioned.' Section 2 of said act is as follows: ‘The said corporation is hereby authorized and empowered to...