City of Oshkosh v. E. Wis. Elec. Co.

Decision Date23 June 1920
Citation178 N.W. 308,172 Wis. 85
PartiesCITY OF OSHKOSH v. EASTERN WISCONSIN ELECTRIC CO.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Winnebago County; George W. Burnell, Judge.

Action by the City of Oshkosh against the Eastern Wisconsin Electric Company. From an order sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to its answer, defendant appeals. Affirmed and remanded.

Plaintiff sues to recover the sum of $1,000 alleged to be due July, 1917, from the defendant as successor to the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company pursuant to the terms of a certain ordinance granted to and the acceptance thereof by such predecessor in 1903. Defendant answered, and plaintiff's demurrer to such answer was sustained by the trial court.

The following are the facts:

November 10, 1903, the common council of plaintiff granted to the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company a franchise to extend its interurban electric railroad from the city of Fond du Lac into the city of Oshkosh.

The ordinance granted the right to lay tracks and operate its cars upon certain streets in the city of Oshkosh and over and upon a bridge on Main street in said city.

Among the terms of said ordinance was a provision by which the said Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company, its successors and assigns, was to pay the city of Oshkosh the sum of $35,000 in annual payments of $1,000 on or before the 1st day of July of each of the following 35 years.

January 19, 1904, the said Railway & Light Company by its officers accepted said franchise by a writing which contained, among other things, the following:

“And the said Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company does further specifically agree and bind itself, its successors and assigns, to the payment of the full sum of $35,000 as provided in said ordinance; that is to say, does hereby agree to pay said sum in equal annual installments of $1,000, each installment to be paid on or before the 1st day of July in each year during the term of said franchise.”

Such annual payments were made up to and including July 1, 1916.

It is alleged in the complaint that the consideration for the annual payment of $1,000 so provided for was agreed to be for the use of said streets and to partially compensate the plaintiff for the wear and tear on said Main street bridge resulting from the operation of said interurban cars over said bridge. No reference is made in the amended answer of defendant to the foregoing allegation other than as may be embraced in the general denial.

March 1, 1917, the defendant, Eastern Wisconsin Electric Company, succeeded to the rights of the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company under the franchise aforesaid, and by purchase became the owner of the property then owned by said Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company, including the interurban railway, and has operated and intends to continue operating the same in the future.

On March 8, 1917, the defendant surrendered such franchise so acquired by it together with others and received by operation of law in lieu of said franchises an indeterminate permit under section 1797t3, Stats.

Defendant alleges that it is now conducting and operating its street and interurban railway business in the city of Oshkosh by virtue of said indeterminate permit only, and not by virtue of the foregoing or any franchise, license, or permit granted by any ordinance of the city of Oshkosh.

To the amended answer the plaintiff demurred, and defendant has appealed from the order sustaining such demurrer.

Bouck, Hilton, Kluwin & Dempsey, of Oshkosh (Charles McPherson, of Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel), for appellant.

Frederic J. Eaton, of Oshkosh, for respondent.

ESCHWEILER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The defendant insists: First, that the plaintiff then had no lawful authority to impose as a condition for the privilege granted by the franchise of November, 1903, the requirement of the promise by the Street Railway Company to pay the $35,000 as in said ordinance contained, and that the stipulation therefor was consequently null and void; and, secondly, that by its surrender of the franchise here in question, together with all other franchises that it then held in March, 1917, and the procuring thereby by operation of law an indeterminate permit, by virtue of section 1797t3, Stats., such condition in the franchise, even if originally valid and binding, became null and void.

At the time of the granting and accepting of the franchise in question the final clause of section 1863, Stats., which is a statute relating to the extension of the lines of interurban railways into adjoining municipalities, read as follows:

“In any city or village the consent of the common council or board of trustees shall be given by ordinance, and upon such terms and subject to such rules and regulations and the payment of such license fees as the common council or board may from time to time prescribe: Provided, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co. v. City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1921
    ...their claim that the agreement to furnish free current has not been superseded by the public utility statute. City of Oshkosh v. Eastern Wis. E. Co., 178 N. W. 308. In that case the city of Oshkosh granted to a street railway company a franchise to extend its interurban electric railroad fr......
  • Crawford v. Duluth St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 30, 1932
    ...Wisconsin has drawn a distinction between a surrender of a street car franchise and that of other utilities. City of Oshkosh v. Eastern Wis. E. Co., 172 Wis. 85, 90, 178 N. W. 308; Calumet Service Co. v. Chilton, 148 Wis. 334, 354, 135 N. W. 131; La Crosse v. La Crosse Gas & Electric Co., 1......
  • City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1959
    ...measure.' In holding the ordinances here to be regulatory measures, the trial court relied upon City of Oshkosh v. Eastern Wisconsin Electric Co., 1920, 172 Wis. 85, 178 N.W. 308, 310. There the city, in granting a franchise to the defendant to extend its interurban electric railroad from F......
  • Chi. & Milwaukee Elec. Ry. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1949
    ...be exclusive. As held in City of LaCrosse v. LaCrosse Gas & Electric Co., 145 Wis. 408, 130 N.W. 530 and City of Oshkosh v. Eastern Wisconsin Electric Co., 172 Wis. 85, 178 N.W. 308 there is a clear distinction between street and urban railways and general utilities. Railways serve termini ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT