Detroit United Railway v. People of the State of Michigan Detroit United Railway v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 11 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 4,1,4
• Citation: 61 L.Ed. 268,37 S.Ct. 87,242 U.S. 238
• Parties: DETROIT UNITED RAILWAY, Plff. in Err., v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. DETROIT UNITED RAILWAY, Plff. in Err., v. CITY OF DETROIT
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

242 U.S. 238

37 S.Ct. 87

61 L.Ed. 268

DETROIT UNITED RAILWAY, Plff. in Err.,

v PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

DETROIT UNITED RAILWAY, Plff. in Err.,

v. CITY OF DETROIT.

No. 1.

No. 4.

Argued October 20, 1916.

Decided December 11, 1916.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 238-240 intentionally omitted]Messrs. Elihu Root, John C. Donnelly, William L. Carpenter, Fred A. Baker, and Henry L. Lyster for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. P. J. M. Hally and Harry J. Dingeman for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 240-242 intentionally omitted]Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

These two cases involve identical questions, were argued together, and may be disposed of in a single opinion.They concern the rates of fare that may be charged by plaintiff in error upon certain street railway lines within the present limits of the city of Detroit, and in both cases it is insisted that the state court of last resort has given such an effect to statutes enacted in the years 1905 and 1907 for extending the corporate limits as to impair the obligation of the contracts contained in franchises theretofore granted by the governing authorities of the annexed territory to the predecessors in title of plaintiff in error.

Plaintiff in error was incorporated December 28, 1900, under the Street Railway Act of 1867 and amendments thereto (1 Mich. Laws 1867, p. 46;Comp. Laws 1897 chap. 168), for the purpose, as its corporate name indicates, of acquiring, maintaining, and operating various lines theretofore constructed by other companies.Section 15 of the Act(Comp. Laws, § 6448) provides that any street railway company may purchase and acquire any street railway in any city, village, or township owned by another corporation, together with the rights, privileges, and franchises thereof, 'and may use and enjoy the rights, privileges, and franchises of such company, the same, and upon the same terms as the company whose road and franchises were so acquired might have done.'Under this authority it shortly thereafter acquired and united under one organization certain lines previously constructed and operated independently throughout the city and its suburbs under different and distinct franchises, of which the following is a summary:

In November, 1862, the city, by ordinance, granted to the incorporators of the Detroit City Railway the right to construct railways in certain streets, including Jefferson avenue, which extends from the center of the city in a northeasterly direction to and beyond the city limits.All the lines authorized were to commence at Campus Martius, and run thence on their several courses to the city limits, and the route along Jefferson avenue to the eastern limits was to be completed within six months after March 31, 1863.In 1873a section was added authorizing the construction of a second track along Jefferson avenue.In 1862 the city limits on Jefferson avenue were at Mt. Elliott avenue.In 1885they were extended to a point 200 feet east of Baldwin avenue, and while they remained as thus fixed, and in the year 1889, a supplemental ordinance was passed granting to the Detroit City Railway, among other things, the right to extend its double track along Jefferson avenue from its then present easterly terminus to the easterly city limits, and fixing a time within which the same should be constructed.There was a provision that the additional lines should be operated in connection with and as parts of the then present system of the Detroit City Railway, and that the company should agree, among other things, to make arrangements for carrying passengers between the hours of 5:30 and 7:00 A. M., and between 5:15 and 6:15 P. M., over any of its lines in the city for a single fare upon tickets sold at the rate of eight for 25 cents, with specified transfer rights.

In 1891 the city limits were further extended along Jefferson avenue to Hurlburt avenue, which was the easterly line of the township of Hamtramck.The railroad on Jefferson avenue in the territory covered by this extension was constructed under franchises granted by the authorities of that township, respecting which no question is now raised.

From Hurlburt avenue eastwardly to the Country Club in the township of Grosse Point—a distance of about 4 1/2 miles—the railroad on Jefferson avenue was constructed under several grants made by the town- ship and village of Grosse Point and the village of Fairview, in the years 1891, 1893, and 1895, and further powers were conferred upon plaintiff in error, after its acquisition of these lines, by ordinance of the village of Fairview, passed May 16, 1905.These several village and township grants were for terms that have not yet expired, and contain provisions for 5-cent fares within the territory covered by them.

The Jefferson avenue lines are operated together as a single system in connection with lines leading from the city northwestwardly on Grand River avenue to and beyond the city limits, constructed under rights derived by predecessors in title of plaintiff in error, as follows:

By ordinance of May 1, 1868, the city granted to the incorporators of the Grnad River Street Railway Company the right to construct lines on certain streets, including Grand River avenue to its intersection with the Michigan Central Railway at or near the then present city limits, with the right to build a second track within five years after the completion of the first.By § 8 this line was to be completed to a spectified point contemporaneously with the paving of the street, and thence to the western city limits whenever public necessity, as determined by the common council, should require.By Acts of 1875 and 1885 the limits were extended from the railroad intersection to a point just beyond the Boulevard.By ordinance of August 3, 1888, there was granted the right to construct single tracks on Grand River avenue from its then present terminus to the westerly city limits, and by ordinance of January 3, 1889, the city granted the right, among others, to construct a double track railway on Grand River avenue from Woodward avenue to the city limits, and under this authority tracks were built to the limits just beyond the Boulevard.The latter ordinance required the company to stipulate that it would sell tickets, eight for 25 cents, good over the entire route of the company, when offered during the morning and afternoon hours specified in the ordinance passed on the same date respecting the Detroit City lines and already referred to.

In 1897 the township of Greenfield granted to the incorporators of the Grand River Electric Railway (a different corporation from that last mentioned) a franchise for tracks along the Grand River road from the westerly line of the township to the then present city limits of Detroit, with a right to charge not exceeding 5 cents as the fare for any distance in Greenfield, or six tickets for 25 cents, with school tickets at ten for 30 cents.Under this franchise a railroad was built along the Grand River road from the then city limits near the Boulevard throughout the township of Greenfield.

As already indicated, all of these lines of railway, with the appurtenant rights, privileges, and franchises, were acquired by plaintiff in error shortly after its incorporation, under the authority of § 15 of the Act of 1867.

Afterwards, by an act of the legislature approved October 24, 1907(Mich. Laws, Ex. Sess.1907, p. 55), a part of the former village of Fairview, including Jefferson avenue for a distance of about 12,500 feet northeastwardly from Hurlburt avenue, was annexed to the city of Detroit.And by Acts of June 16, 1905, and June 19, 1907(Mich. Local Acts 1905, p. 1144;Local Acts 1907, p. 940), the city limits were extended northwestwardly along Grand River avenue for a distance of about one-half mile in territory previously part of Greenfield township.Each of these acts provided that the annexed territory should be subject to all the laws of the state applicable to the city, and to all the ordinances and regulations of the city, with exceptions not now material.

It is the contention of defendants in error that the provisions respecting fares in the two ordinances of January 3, 1889, assented to by the predecessors of plaintiff in error in the ownership of the city lines on Jefferson and Grand River avenues, were intended to be applicable throughout the city as it might from time to time be enlarged, and that plaintiff in error is bound by the limitations of those ordinances as to all its lines within the city, not only as its limits existed in 1889, but also including the territory annexed in 1905 and 1907.

In case No. 1, the supreme court of the state sustained the imposition of a fine for failure to accept workingmen's tickets, so called, within the hours prescribed by the ordinance of 1889 upon the Jefferson avenue line within the territory formerly part of the village of Fairview, but annexed to the city by the Act of October 24, 1907.162 Mich. 460, 139 Am. St. Rep. 582, 125 N. W. 700, 127 N. W. 748.

In No. 4, the court sustained a judgment awarding a mandamus requiring plaintiff in error to observe the provisions of the ordinances of 1889 upon the entire Jefferson avenue,—Grand River avenue route, so far as included within the city limits as extended in 1907. 173 Mich. 314, 139 N. W. 56.

In each case plaintiff in error seasonably and expressly insisted that the several township and village grants above referred to were subsisting and valid contracts at and before the legislature of Michigan passed the acts extending the city limits, and that those acts, if so construed or applied as to affect or modify the contracts, were in conflict with § 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.And it is upon the overruling of these contentions that the cases are brought here, under § 237, Judicial Code[36 Stat. at L. 1156, chap. 231, Comp. Stat....