Omaha Horse-Railway Co. v. Cable Tramway Co.
Decision Date | 05 March 1887 |
Parties | OMAHA HORSE RY. CO. v. CABLE TRAMWAY CO. OF OMAHA. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
'Section 1. Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the territory of Nebraska, that Alfred Burley, Ezra Millard, George W. Frost, Joel T. Griffin, J. W. Paddock, C S. Chase, Geo. M. O'Brien, J. R. Meridith, R. A. Bird, E B. Chandler, John McCormick, Augustus Kountze, Wm. Ruth, J Frank Coffman, A. J. Hanscom, and David Butler be, and they are hereby, created and constituted a body corporate and politic by the name of the 'Omaha Horse-railway Company,' with all the power and authority incident to railroad corporations within the territory or under the laws thereof; provided, that the said corporation shall within two years from the granting of this charter have at lease one mile of said horse railroad completed and in running order together with the necessary depots, cars, and all other equipments necessary for the running of the aforesaid road.
There is also an act, approved February 25, 1875, entitled 'An act to encourage the building of street railways in the cities of the state of Nebraska:'
'Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Nebraska:
On the seventh day of June, 1867, the following act was passed:
On the seventh of February, 1871, an act was passed repealing the act last above quoted.
Geo. E. Prichett, J. M. Woolworth, Thurston & Hall and John H. Dillon, for complainant.
J. C. Courie, for defendant.
The initial and important question is whether a cable tramway is within plaintiff's exclusive grant of a right to build, erect, and operate horse railways. If the grant were made to-day it could not seriously be contended that it was so included. There is such a clear and recognized distinction between horse railroads and cable roads that, applying the ordinary rules for the construction of legislative grants, neither kind of road would be included within a grant of the other. The contention, however, is that at the time of this grant cable roads were practically unknown; that the only known form of street railways was the horse railway; that the terms 'street railroad' and 'horse railroad' were in common parlance used to describe the same thing; that in construing the grant we are to place ourselves back to the time at which it was made, and these terms 'horse railroad' and 'street railroad' being then used interchangeably for the same thing, we are to suppose that the legislature meant by the use of one term all that it would have meant by the use of the other, and that therefore all that would to-day be included within either term was within the scope of the grant. The rule for the construction of legislative grants is well settled. They are to be construed against the grantee and in favor of the public; and nothing passes unless it is obvious that the intent was that it should pass. I do not mean that they are to be construed technically and narrowly so as to defeat the very purposes of the grant, but that, giving to language its ordinary meaning, nothing will be included unless obviously within the scope of such meaning.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilmington City Railway Co. v. Wilmington & Brandywine Springs Railway Co.
... ... R. Co., 25 Ga. 445, 457; ... People vs. Newton, 112 N.Y. 396; Omaha Horse Ry ... Co. vs. Cable Tramway Co. of Omaha, 33 F. 689; ... operate a "horse railway" within the city of Omaha, ... and it sought to enjoin the respondent, ... ...
-
Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas City, 672
... ... Co. v. Interstate Rapid Transit ... Ry. Co., 24 F. 306, 310; Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v ... Cable Tramway Co., 30 F. 324; Saginaw Gaslight Co ... ...
-
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Binghamton Ry. Co.
... ... In ... Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable Tramway Co. (C.C.) 30 ... F. 324, the plaintiff ... ...
-
Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Company
... ... G.L. Co. v. City of Saginaw, 28 F. 529; Omaha Horse ... Ry. Co. v. Cable Tramway Co., 30 F. 324; State v ... ...
-
MONOPOLIZING DIGITAL COMMERCE.
...exclusive right to operate did not serve to prevent construction of a competing railroad); Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable Tramway Co., 30 F. 324 (C.C.D. Neb. 1887) (holding that an exclusive grant to plaintiff to operate a horse-drawn railroad in Omaha was to be strictly construed and thus wa......