City of Englewood v. Denver Ry Co
| Decision Date | 07 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 106,106 |
| Parties | CITY OF ENGLEWOOD v. DENVER & S. P. RY. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. L. F. Twitchell, of Denver, Colo., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Fred Farrar, of Denver, Colo., for defendant in error.
This is a bill to compel the defendant to arrange for passengers on its road to be transported without extra fare over the line of the Denver City Tramway Company from a point of connection and in like manner for passengers on that company's line to be carried over the defendant's line without additional charge. The defendant operates a street railway under a franchise granted by the plaintiff while a town. By section 6 of the ordinance making the grant the grantees were allowed to charge certain fares provided that they should make the arrangement stated above. The defence pleaded against being required to comply with these terms is that the Denver City Tramway Company charges five cents, the maximum fare allowed, for its part of the service, so that the defendant gets nothing, and that the defendant filed a schedule of rates with the State Public Utilities Commission which now are the defendant's established rates and charges. On demurrer the Supreme Court of the State held that this town, at least, deriving its powers from legislative grant, could make no contract of this sort that was not subject to control by the legislature, that the Public Utilities Commission had been authorized by the legislature to regulate the matter in controversy, that it had done so, and that this proceeding should be dismissed.
Of course we do not go behind the decision of the Court that the matter in controversy was subject to regulation by the Commission and was regulated by it in due form if the State could confer that power. The plaintiff says that the State could not conter it since to do so would impair the obligation of a contract. Upon that point we agree with the Court below that clearer language than can be found in the State laws and this ordinance must be used before a public service is withdrawn from public control. Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, 238 U. S. 174, 180, 35 Sup. Ct. 820, 59 L. Ed. 1254. The cases generally are cases where the railroad or other company sets up contract rights against the city. Whether when the railroad consents a legislature would not have all the power that the city could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.
... ... for the purpose, and to furnish terminal facilities for ... railroads entering the city of Jacksonville, Fla ... Terminal ... or union depot companies common carriers, subject ... Pawhuska Oil & ... Gas Co., 250 U.S. 394, 39 S.Ct. 526, 63 L.Ed. 1054; ... Englewood v. Denver & S. P. R. Co., 248 U.S. 294, 39 ... S.Ct. 100, 63 L.Ed. 253; City of San Antonio v ... ...
-
In re Sear Sport Water Co.
...is required. Home Tel. & Tel. Co., v. Los Angeles, supra, 211 U. S. 273, 29 Sup. Ct. 50, 53 L. Ed. 176; Englewood v. So. Platte Ry. Co., 248 U. S. 294, 39 Sup. Ct. 100. 63 L. Ed. To apply these principles to the instant cases, we find no such clear and unmistakable surrender of this importa......
-
Furstenberg v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Ry. Co.
... ... City of Omaha, proponent, for authority from the Nebraska ... State Railway Commission for the ... Los Angeles Ry. Corporation, 280 U.S. 145, 50 S.Ct. 71, ... 74 L.Ed. 234; City of Englewood v. Denver & South Platte ... Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 294, 39 S.Ct. 100, 63 L.Ed. 253; ... Southwest ... ...
-
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Binghamton Ry. Co.
... ... propositions, to wit: ... First ... Does there exist a contract between the city of Binghamton ... and the defendant company which precludes the Public Service ... Commission ... Commission of jurisdiction in this matter ... In ... City of Englewood v. Denver & South Platte Railway ... Co., 248 U.S. 294, 39 Sup.Ct. 100, 63 L.Ed ... , ... ...