Southern Pacific Company v. City of Portland
Decision Date | 24 February 1913 |
Docket Number | No. 122,122 |
Parties | SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, Appt., v. CITY OF PORTLAND |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from a decree refusing to enjoin the city of Portland from enforcing an ordinance prohibiting the Southern Pacific Company from running steam locomotives or freight cars along 4th street.
It appeared that the Oregon Central R. R. was chartered to build a road from Portland to the California line. The company thereupon purchased a block of land in the city on which to locate its terminals, and applied to the council to designate the street on which the track should be laid. The general statute of the state then of force provided (Code of Oregon, 5077, 5078) that whenever a private corporation was authorized to appropriate any part of any public street within the limits of any town, such corporation should locate their road upon such particular street as he local authorities might designate. But if such local authorities refused to make such designation within a reasonable time when requested, such corporation might make such appropriation without reference thereto.
The bill alleges that on January 6, 1869, 'under and by virtue of the laws of the state and its charter then in effect, the city of Portland duly passed ordinance 599, which provided that——
* * * * *
* * * * *
The ordinance was accepted and the road was built from the terminals along 4th to Sheridan street, thence south over its private property and the right of way granted by Congress (16 Stat. at L. 94, chap. 69) to McMinnville. From its completion in 1871 to the present time freight and passenger cars drawn by steam locomotives have been constantly operated along 4th street. In 1903 the charter of the city of Portland was amended so as to authorize the granting of street franchises, and it is alleged that the city desired the railroad to take an electric franchise, paying therefor an annual sum. It is further charged that on May 1, 1907, over ther protest of the railroad company, the council passed ordinance 16,491, to go into effect eighteen months after date, by which it was made unlawful for the Oregon Central, its assigns, their lessess, or any other person, to run or operate steam locomotives or freight cars along 4th street . . . between Glisan and the southerly limits of the city, excepting freight cars for the repair or maintenance of the railway lawfully and rightfully on said street. Violations were to be punished by fine or imprisonment, and deemed a forfeiture of all rights claimed by the Oregon Central with respect to the operation of the railway on the street. On November 16, 1908, after the expiration of the eighteen months, a proceeding was instituted in the municipal court against the company and one of its agents, charging that he and it 'did wilfully and unlawfully run and operate steam railway locomotives along 4th street,' contrary to the provisions of ordinance 16,491.
The Southern Pacific, a Kentucky corporation, thereupon filed a bill in the United States circuit court, alleging that the Oregon Central's property had been transferred to the Oregon & California R. R., and that in 1887 the property and this street right had been leased to the Southern Pacific, which had since continuously operated freight and passenger cars with steam power over 4th street.
It averred that the railroad owned no other terminal property than that purchased in 1869 and reached by the tracks on 4th street; that it was impossible to obtain any other terminal within the city accessible to the railroad from the intersection of 4th and Sheridan streets to the south boundary; that cars from Corvallis, on its line running south, could not be brought into the city, and its business as a common carrier conducted, if the ordinance was enforced, except by constructing, at an estimated cost of $911,000, about 10 miles of road from Beaverton to Willsburg, thence across a bridge owned by the Oregon R. R. & N. Co., and thence by the southern terminus of said railroad constructed by the Oregon Central. The bill charged that the ordinance imposed excessive penalties and illegal forfeitures; that it was arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive; deprived the company of property without due process of law; interfered with interstate commerce, and impaired the obligation of the contract under which the track had been laid in 4th street.
The city answered, denying that the Southern Pacific owned the property and franchises of the Oregon Central, on the ground that the latter company had no charter right to sell, and also offered evidence to show that when, in 1869, the tracks were first laid on 4th street, there were very few buildings thereon, while it was now one of the principal thoroughfares, upon which many stores, hotels, and public structures have been erected; it proved that the locomotives and cars were much heavier than those in use when Ordinance 599 was passed, and the grade being steep, the puffing, blowing, exhaust, noise, and jar caused by steam locomotives was more disturbing and injurious than where the line is more nearly level. It also proved that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Allen
... ... v. Southern Land & Timber Co., 45 Fla. 374, 33 So. 999, ... where it ... 77, 145 N.W ... 425; State ex rel. City of Fargo v. Wetz, 40 N.D ... 299, 168 N.W. 835, 5 A. L ... ...
-
Hays v. City of Poplar Bluff
...Co., 26 Pa. S.Ct. 346; Greenville v. Pridmore, 86 S.C. 442; Salt Lake City v. Christensen, 34 Utah 38, 17 L.R.A. (N. S.) 898; So. Pac. Co. v. Portland, 227 U.S. 559. (2) The opinion of the commissioner should not be adopted this court for the further reason that to do so would result in the......
-
Todd v. CITIZENS'GAS CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS
...company accepts the grant, it is bound by the conditions, and is estopped to question their validity. Southern Pacific Co. v. Portland, 227 U. S. 559, 572, 33 S. Ct. 308, 57 L. Ed. 642; Chicago General Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 253, 52 N. E. 880, 66 L. R. A. 959, 68 Am. St. Rep. ......
-
In re Petition for Increase of Street Car Fares in City of Charlotte
... ... SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE. No. 445. Supreme Court of ... matter of the petition of the Southern Public Utilities ... Company for an increase of street car fares in the City of ... Charlotte. The ... lower rates made by the parties. ( Texas Pacific v. Mugg, ... etc., 202 U.S. 242, 26 S.Ct. 628, 50 L.Ed. 1011, and ... its corresponding obligation. See So. Pac. Co. v. City of ... Portland, 227 U.S. 559, 33 S.Ct. 308, 57 L.Ed. 642; ... Railway v. McCarthy, 96 ... ...