Portland Ry., Light & Power Co. v. City of Portland
Decision Date | 25 November 1912 |
Docket Number | 5,722. |
Citation | 201 F. 119 |
Parties | PORTLAND RY., LIGHT & POWER CO. v. CITY OF PORTLAND et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
F. V Holman and Franklin T. Griffith, both of Portland, Or., for complainant.
Frank S. Grant, City Atty., and L. E. Latourette, Deputy City Atty., both of Portland, Or., for defendants.
Before WOLVERTON and BEAN, District Judges.
This suit is brought to enjoin the defendant city and its officers and agents from enforcing as against the complainant ordinance No. 25683, enacted by its city council August 14 1912, and which reads as follows:
In December, 1902, the Oregon Water Power Company owned and was operating street railways in the city of Portland, under municipal franchises, and at that time the city passed and the Power Company accepted a new ordinance granting to it a franchise over additional streets, which provided that the grantee and its successors and assigns 'may charge and collect from each passenger traveling upon its railways a fare of five cents, and no more, for traveling each continuous trip in any one direction within the limits of the city of Portland over the line of railway constructed by authority of this ordinance, and its other lines of railway within the limits of said city.'
On November 24, 1902, the Portland Railway Company was the owner of certain franchises under which it was operating street railways in the city of Portland, and on the day named the city passed, and the company accepted, an ordinance repealing all former franchises and granting a new one over certain designated streets, and which provided that the grantee or its successors and assigns 'may charge and collect from each passenger traveling upon its railways for each trip traveled by such passenger in one general direction upon the railways authorized by section 1 of this ordinance within the limits of the city of Portland a fare of five cents and no more; excepting that for riding in or the use of observation cars, funeral cars, mail cars, express cars, freight cars, party cars, and other special cars said railway company, its successors and assigns, may charge and collect such compensation, rates and fares as it or they may desire.'
On January 9, 1903, the City & Suburban Railway Company was the owner of a street railway system and was operating the same under previously granted franchises covering certain designated streets, and on that day an ordinance was adopted repealing former franchises and granting to the company a new one which contained a provision in reference to fares similar to that in the ordinance of November 24, 1902, to the Portland Railway Company.
At the time of the passage of these several ordinances, the city had authority to 'provide for and allow the laying down of tracks for street cars and other railways upon such street or streets as the council may designate' (Laws 1898, Special Session, p. 114), but no authority to enter into a contract with the grantee of such franchise fixing the rate of fares to be charged by such grantee, nor did it have specific authority to regulate such charges.
On the 23d of January, 1903, the present charter of the city of Portland was approved by the Governor. It contains a provision that:
'Nothing in this charter contained shall affect the validity of any franchise, right or privilege in actual use or enjoyment heretofore given or granted by any former or the present city of Portland, or by the city of East Portland or by the city of Albina, and the same shall be and continue in force and effect as given or granted by said cities or either of them. ' Special Laws 1903, p. 52.
After the adoption of the present charter and prior to 1909, the complainant herein became the owner by purchase or otherwise of the several franchises heretofore referred to and the railways being operated thereunder. In order that it might operate its lines as one system, the city council passed, and the complainant accepted, in April of that year, a new ordinance (No. 19176) granting to it additional franchises over streets and parts of streets so as to enable it to connect its tracks, which ordinance provides (section 12):
And that:
'This ordinance and the franchise herein contained is granted subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions contained in the charter of the city of Portland and applicable thereto in the same manner and to the same extent as if each and every of said terms, provisions and conditions were expressly set out and incorporated herein. ' Section 19.
And also:
'The power and right at all times to reasonably regulate in the public interest the exercise of the rights and privileges granted by this franchise shall be and remain vested in the council of the city of Portland. ' Section 21.
At the time of the granting of such franchise, the following provisions of the city charter were in force:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of St. Louis v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
...119, which was a suit to enjoin the enforcement of a city ordinance on the ground that it impaired the obligation of a contract, the court (p. 124) said: "There is no that the city was without authority to pass an ordinance of that kind. Furthermore, the city has answered, setting up variou......
-
State ex rel. Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Latshaw
... ... judicial power requiring correction by this court through ... writ of ... 201; Sexton v ... Ry. Co., 173 Cal. 760. (d) Therefore, respondent was ... v. Kansas City ... Power & Light Co., 275 Mo. 529; St. Louis v. Public ... Service ... United ... States, 208 U.S. 161; Railroad v. Portland, 201 ... F. 119; Telegraph Co. v. Syracuse, 53 N.Y.S ... ...
-
The State ex rel. St. Joseph Water Co. v. Eastin
... ... city limits, if given the effect ... declared by the ... legislative power delegated by the General Assembly, as may ... Tennessee, 153 U.S. 486; Light & Power Co. v ... Portland, 201 F. 119. (3) ... v ... Pritchett, 85 Ind. 68; Richmond St. Ry. Co. v ... Reed, 83 Ind. 9; Howe v. Fleming, ... ...
-
Puget Sound Traction Light & Power Co. v. Reynolds
... ... through the city of Seattle on First or avenue, as far ... north at least as Virginia ... vital subject.' ... To the ... same effect, see Portland Ry. Light & Power Co. v. City ... of Portland (D.C.) 201 F. 119 ... ...