City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Railway Company
Decision Date | 31 May 1904 |
Docket Number | No. 256,256 |
Citation | 48 L.Ed. 1109,194 U.S. 538,24 S.Ct. 764 |
Parties | CITY OF CLEVELAND, Appt. , v. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Newton D. Baker and D. C. Westenhaver for appellant.
Mr. William B. Sanders for appellee.
This case is analogous in the facts shown by the record to the one just decided (Cleveland v. Cleveland City R. Co. 194 U. S. ——, ante, p. 756, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 756), and presents identical questions of law.
We shall briefly advert to some only of the material facts.
An ordinance was passed by the city council of Cleveland in 1879, granting a renewal of franchise to the East Cleveland Railroad Company, and in § 6 of the ordinance it was provided as follows:
By ordinances duly accepted, passed in 1886, 1888, and 1889, extensions were authorized, thorized, the right was given to doubletrack portions of the line, the franchise was extended, and additional obligations were assumed by the railroad company in respect to paving, etc. It was expressly stipulated in the ordinances of 1886 and 1887 that the company should charge and collect for passage over its lines in either direction but one fare, of not more than 5 cents; there was no reservation of the future right to alter rates of fare; and it was agreed that the rights conferred should continue during the life of the franchise.
In 1893 the East Cleveland Railroad Company was consolidated with three other corporations, independent lines of railway, in the city of Cleveland, each of them operating under contracts or grants from the city, and charging, as authorized in the ordinance permitting their operation, a cash fare of 5 cents. As to no one of these companies was there any right remaining in the city council to increase or diminish the rate of fare during the period of the several grants. The fare then being charged by all the constituent companies was 5 cents. Since the consolidation the system has been operated in its entirety, and but a single fare of 5 cents has been charged.
On October 17, 1898, the city council of Cleveland passed ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Berdos v. Tremont & Suffolk Mills
-
Van Horn v. City of Des Moines
... ... Moines City Railway Company, to restrain the defendant city ... and its ... appellant, but see Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. R ... Co., 194 U.S. 538 (48 L.Ed ... successors, and assigns to furnish electric energy to ... interurban railway companies for the ... ...
-
Van Horn v. City of Des Moines
...and the grantee is created. This is, of course, conceded by counsel for appellant, but see City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. Ry. Co., 194 U. S. 538, 24 Sup. Ct. 764, 48 L. Ed. 1109;Columbus Ry. Light & Power Co. v. Columbus, 249 U. S. 399, 39 Sup. Ct. 349, 63 L. Ed. 669, 6 A. L. R. 1648.......
-
Knoxville Gas Co. v. City of Knoxville
... ... brings the financial showing of the company down to July, ... 1918, and tends to intensify the present ... 77, 43 L.Ed. 341; Cunningham v. City of ... Cleveland, 98 F. 657, 39 C.C.A. 211; Illinois Trust ... & Savings ... the Africa Case related to street railway franchises, I think ... by analogy it applied with full ... ...