City of Detroit v. Ellis

• Decision Date: 22 January 1895
• Citation: 61 N.W. 886,103 Mich. 612
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF DETROIT ET AL. v. ELLIS, ATTY. GEN.

61 N.W. 886

103 Mich. 612

CITY OF DETROIT ET AL. v. ELLIS, ATTY. GEN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 22, 1895

Application by the city of Detroit and certain of its citizens for an order to show cause why A. A. Ellis, attorney general, should not file an application in the nature of a quo warranto to inquire by what right the Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Company maintains its tracks in certain streets of the city. Motion denied.

F. A Baker, Russel & Campbell, Ashley Pond, Henry M. Duffield, and Sidney T. Miller, for respondent.

McGRATH C.J.

This is an application for an order to show cause why the attorney general should not file an application in the nature of a quo warranto to inquire by what right the Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Company claims to exercise, and does exercise, in certain streets of the city of Detroit, the right of maintaining and using street-railway tracks in said streets. Petitioners allege that in November, 1862, the common council of the city of Detroit passed an ordinance whereby consent was given to one Bushnell and his associates who were about to organize as a corporation, to lay street-railway tracks, and to operate a street-railway system in and upon certain streets in the city of Detroit; that afterwards, on the 9th day of May, 1863, said Bushnell and his associates organized into a corporation which, by its articles, was to continue for 30 years, under the name of the Detroit City Railway, which entered into possession of said streets, and built and maintained street-car lines, and exercised all the usual franchises connected therewith; that November 14, 1879, another ordinance was made, adding other provisions to the agreement between the street-railway company and the city, and providing that "the powers and privileges conferred and obligations imposed on the Detroit City Railway Company by the ordinance passed November 24 1862, and the amendments thereto, are hereby extended and limited to thirty years from this date"; that in 1891 the Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Company was organized for a period of 30 years, and, soon after its organization, received a conveyance of all the property rights and franchises of said Detroit City Railway Company and under such conveyance the Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Company claims the right to operate, and is now using, all the franchises in said streets; that the value of the franchises and rights in said streets occupied and claimed by said Citizens' Street-Railway Company is very great, and that its claims are a great obstacle, as your petitioners are informed and believe, and therefore aver, to the making of the best terms which the city can make for the public accommodation by the establishment and maintenance of improved street-car lines on said streets, and are therefore injurious to the city and all residents; that, if the claims of said Citizens' Company are declared void, arrangements can readily be made with other street-car companies by which the car service can be greatly improved, and either the fares much reduced, or the amount paid to the city be greatly increased, or both; that the said ordinance of 1879, attempting to extend the franchises and rights of said Detroit City Railway 30 years from November 14, 1879, was void after May 9, 1893, because the life of said grantee expired at that time. In 1892 the city of Detroit filed its bill in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, in chancery, against the Detroit City Railway, Detroit Citizens' Railway Company, and others, setting forth at length the matters which are substantially set forth in the petition herein, and praying that defendants might be enjoined from operating street railways in said streets after the 9th day of May, 1893. The said cause was afterwards removed to the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan, in equity, where a decree was finally entered in accordance with the prayer of the bill. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 60 F. 161. Defendants took the case to the court of appeals,...