San Antonio Traction Company v. George Altgelt

Decision Date22 January 1906
Docket NumberNo. 131,131
Citation26 S.Ct. 261,200 U.S. 304,50 L.Ed. 491
PartiesSAN ANTONIO TRACTION COMPANY Plff. in Err. , v. GEORGE A. ALTGELT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Charles W. Ogden for plaintiff in error.

No counsel for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

This was a petition by Altgelt, suing by his next friend, originally filed in the district court of Bexar county, for a peremptory mandamus against the traction company, a Texas corporation operating a street railway system, commanding it to issue to the plaintiff twenty half-fare street car tickets upon the payment of 50 cents, the same being at the rate of 2 1/2 cents per ticket.

Both parties relied upon the legal effect of certain legislation of the state of Texas hereafter set forth. The mandamus was granted by the district court, whose action was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. An application for a writ of error from the supreme court was denied.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

This case depends upon the construction and validity of certain legislative acts of the state of Texas from 1874, the date of the original charter, to 1903, the date of the act complained of as an impairment of the traction company's contract.

The Constitution of 1869, in force at the time the original company was chartered, contained no limitation upon the power of the legislature to grant franchises in towns, cities, and other subdivisions of the state. The San Antonio Street Railway Company was incorporated in 1874 by special act, in which it was provided, § 8, that 'all contracts made and entered into between the mayor and aldermen of the city of San Antonio and said company, or any privileges and rights granted . . . to said company, shall be in all respects legal and binding on the aforesaid contracting parties;' and by § 9, that the charter 'shall remain in full force and effect for the period of fifty years.'

By ordinance of the city council of October 5, 1875, privilege was granted to the San Antonio Street Railway Company to construct a first-class horse railway, during the term of its charter, upon the streets of said city, upon certain routes; but the ordinance did not fix the rate of fare to be charged for the transportation of persons over its projected lines.

By article 10, § 7, of the Constitution of Texas of 1876, it was provided that 'no law shall be passed by the legislature granting the right to construct and operate a street railway within any city, town, or village, or upon any public highway, without first acquiring the consent of the local authorities having control of the street or highway proposed to be occupied by said railway.'

Section 17 of article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the same Constitution provides that 'no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.'

On March 16, 1899, twenty-three years after the adoption of this Constitution, an ordinance of the city was passed, granting an extension of time to the San Antonio Street Railway, and the San Antonio Edison Company, and imposing certain limitations upon the exercise of their franchises, among which was that 'said street railway companies shall charge 5 cents fare for one continuous ride over any one of their lines, with one transfer to or from either line to the other.'

It was also provided, by § 11 of the same ordinance, that 'the rights, privileges, and franchises, or either of them herein referred to and hereby extended, may be assigned by the grantee or grantees to any person or corporation, and the limitations of this ordinance shall apply to the assignee thereof.'

On April 4, 1900, all the property of this company was sold under the decree of a state court to a trustee for the stockholders, subject to the payment of the debts of the company, and to the performance of all outstanding contract obligations, which were declared 'a preference lien' against all the property sold in the hands of the purchaser. The conveyance expressly stipulated that 'within the meaning of the words 'contract obligations' shall be understood any and all existing contracts of the said Antonio Street Railway Company for street railway service over its road, or any portion thereof, had with any person or persons, now binding on said street railway company.'

On August 7, 1900, the common council of the city passed an ordinance reciting the sale of the property and privileges of the former corporations, the San Antonio and Edison Companies, to the traction company, and enacting that all the rights and privileges therefore granted to the former companies, which were said to be 'now defunct,' with all the limitations, duties, contracts, and obligations imposed and required of the said San Antonio Street Railway Company, were imposed upon the traction company. This ordinance was accepted.

The legislation remained in this condition until April 10, 1903, when the legislature of the state passed a new act, the 2d section of which reads as follows:

'Sec. 2. All such persons or corporations owning or operating street railways shall sell or provide for the sale of tickets in lots of twenty, each good for one trip over the line or lines owned or operated by such person or corporation, at and for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Pomona
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 31, 1908
    ... ... 30) granting to Sunset Telephone-Telegraph Company (a ... corporation distinct and separate from the ... 201, 24 Sup.Ct. 241, 48 L.Ed. 406; San ... Antonio Traction Co. v. Altgelt, 200 U.S. 304, 26 ... Sup.Ct ... ...
  • Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. Gilchrist
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 10, 1928
    ...to give up the duty of preventing excessive charges. It was an inalienable power. To like effect, see San Antonio Traction Co. v. Altgelt, 200 U. S. 304, 26 S. Ct. 261, 50 L. Ed. 491; Puget Sound Traction, etc., Co. v. Reynolds, 244 U. S. 574, 37 S. Ct. 705, 61 L. Ed. 1325; City of Houston ......
  • Texas Power & Light Co. v. City of Garland
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1968
    ...city with its poles and lines. The vested right to use the streets was not disturbed, said the court. San Antonio Traction Co. v. Altgelt, 200 U.S. 304, 26 S.Ct. 261, 50 L.Ed. 491 (1906) affirming 81 S.W. 106 (Tex.Civ.App.1904, writ ref.) upheld the power of the City of San Antonio to force......
  • State v. Burr
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1920
    ... ... J. Triay, ... as receiver of the Jacksonville Traction Company, against R ... Hudson Burr and two others, as the ... 98, 11 S.Ct. 226, 34 L.Ed. 898; San Antonio Traction Co ... v. Algelt, 200 U.S. 304, 26 S.Ct. 261, ... George III of England, that was held to be a contract, was ... ...
  • 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