People ex rel. Woodhaven Gaslight Co. v. Deehan

Decision Date05 October 1897
Citation153 N.Y. 528,47 N.E. 787
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. WOODHAVEN GASLIGHT CO. v. DEEHAN.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Second department.

Petition by the Woodhaven Gaslight Company for a writ of peremptory mandamus to James F. Deehan, as street commissioner of the village of Richmond Hill, to command said commissioner to issue a permit to the petitioner to lay its pipes along Broadway street, of said village. From a judgment of the appellate division (42 N. Y. Supp. 1071) reversing an order granting the writ, the relator appeals. Reversed.

Paul E. De Fere, for appellant.

Arthur M. Sanders, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The relator is a domestic corporation, organized under chapter 37 of the Laws of 1848, for the purpose of supplying gas for lighting the streets, public places, and private buildings in the town of Jamaica, in the county of Queens. The statute confers power upon such corporations to furnish such quantities of gas as may be required in the city, town, or village where the same may be located, for lighting the streets and public or private buildings, or for other purposes, ‘and to lay conductors for conducting gas through the streets, lanes, alleys, squares and highways in such city, village or town with the consent of the municipal authorities thereof and under such reasonable regulations as they may prescribe.’ In the year 1871, after the relator was incorporated, the municipal authorities of the town of Jamaica, composed of the supervisor, three justices of the peace, commissioners of highways, and town clerk, granted the consent required by the statute that gas conductors might be placed in the streets and highways of the town. This consent is in the following terms: We, the undersigned, supervisor, town clerk, justices of the peace, and commissioners of highways of the town of Jamaica, in the county of Queens and state of New York, do hereby consent that the Woodhaven Gaslight Company may have the power, and the same is hereby conferred upon and granted to them, of laying conductors for conducting gas in and through the public streets and highways of said town of Jamaica; and we do hereby exempt the said Woodhaven Gaslight Company from taxation on their personal property for the period of three years from the organization of said company.’ This grant, by its terms, is plainly co-extensive with the limits of the town, and was not confined to any particular street, highway, or other local division. It appears that in the year 1894 a portion of the town of Jamaica was incorporated into the village of Richmond Hill, for the purpose of village government, but it still remained part of the town, as before. The trustees of the village proceeded to make ordinances and regulations with respect to the use of the streets, and, among other things, enacted that no person should alter or disturb the grade of any street or public place without a permit from the street commissioner, and that no person or corporation shall dig in or upon any street or public place without such permit. The relator applied to the defendant, who is the street commissioner of the village, for the necessary permit to lay its pipes and conductors in that part of Broadway, one of the streets or highways of the town, which was embraced within the village...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • City of Jamestown v. Pennsylvania Gas Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 28 Junio 1924
    ...is property of which the company cannot be divested except for cause and by due legal process. In People ex rel. Woodhaven Gas Co. v. Deehan, 153 N. Y. 528, 532, 47 N. E. 787, 788, the court declared that "such a franchise is property that cannot be destroyed or taken from it or rendered us......
  • State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 22 Marzo 1913
    ...Ala. 122, 4 South. 106, 5 Am. St. Rep. 342;Seattle v. Columbia & P. S. R. Co., 6 Wash. 392, 33 Pac. 1048;People ex rel. Woodhaven Gaslight Co. v. Deehan, 153 N. Y. 528, 47 N. E. 787. The earlier cases are reviewed in Detroit Citizens' Street R. Co. v. Detroit, 26 L. R. A. 667, 12 C. C. A. 3......
  • State ex rel. St. Louis v. Pub. Serv. Comm.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1937
    ...where necessary to render the service. Oklahoma G. & E. Co. v. State, 87 Okla. 174; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U.S. 195; People ex rel. v. Deehan, 153 N.Y. 528; Lukrawka v. Spring Valley Water Co., 169 Cal. 318, 146 Pac. 640; N.C. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Southern Pr. Co., 282 Fed. 837, certiorari ......
  • Crownhill Homes, Inc. v. City of San Antonio
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 8 Agosto 1968
    ...company is in duty bound to furnish gas to inhabitants of the territory covered by its franchise. People ex rel . Woodhaven Gas Co. v. Deehan, 153 N.Y. 528, 533, 47 N.E. 787. And the commission is empowered by statute to require reasonable extensions of the mains and service. Section 66(2),......
  • 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