State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. St. Paul City Railway Company
| Decision Date | 20 June 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,045 - (23) |
| Citation | 142 N.W. 136,122 Minn. 163 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CITY OF ST. PAUL v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Upon the petition of relator the district court for Ramsey county granted its alternative writ of mandamus, directing defendant railway company to forthwith construct a double track line of street railway, with all necessary appliances for the operation thereof, upon St. Clair street from West Seventh street to Oxford street, in the city of St. Paul, and to connect the tracks with those on West Seventh street, and when so constructed to run and operate cars over the same, or show cause why it had not done so. A portion of defendant's return to the writ is quoted in the opinion (see pages 169, 170, infra). The relator demurred to the answer and return of defendant. From an order directing a peremptory writ to issue, Dickson, J., defendant appealed. Reversed.
Street railway -- ordering new line -- ordinance construed.
1. Section 18 of defendant's street railway franchise under which it operates a line of street railway in the city of St Paul, the same being ordinance No. 1227 of that city construed and held to justify the common council of the city in ordering the construction of a new line of street railway only where public convenience and necessity will be promoted thereby.
Street railway -- determination of city authorities final, ordinarily.
2. The question whether public interests will be promoted to such an extent as to justify a new line or an extension of an existing line is legislative, and the determination thereof by the municipal authorities is ordinarily final, in the absence of some provision in the law for a judicial review of the same.
Street railway -- presumption.
3. An order for the construction of a new line of street railway, when made under the provisions of the ordinance referred to, is presumed to have been founded in public necessity, and also that the order imposes upon the street railway company no unreasonable requirement.
Presumption not conclusive.
4. The presumption of reasonableness is not conclusive, and the street car company is entitled to a hearing thereon in proceedings to enforce compliance with the order directing the new line to be constructed.
Pleading -- issue of reasonableness.
5. Defendant's answer held, by the facts pleaded therein, to present an issue upon the question of reasonableness, and the demurrer of the city thereto should have been overruled.
N. M. Thygeson and W. D. Dwyer, for appellant.
O. H. O'Neill, for respondent.
Proceedings in mandamus, brought by the city of St. Paul, to compel defendant to construct and operate an extended line of street railway in said city in compliance with ordinance No. 2905, approved May 7, 1910, by which the common council, acting under section 18 of ordinance 1227, formally ordered the line constructed. Defendant interposed in defense, by way of answer: (1) That there was not public necessity for the construction of the new line, and that the ordinance commanding it was therefore unauthorized; and (2) facts tending to show that the action of the council in ordering the line constructed was arbitrary and unreasonable. The city interposed a general demurrer to the answer, which the court below sustained. Judgment was thereafter entered commanding and requiring the construction of the line, and defendant appealed.
Defendant is a street railway corporation, and by ordinance No. 1227, above referred to, was granted a franchise to construct and operate upon certain streets of the city lines of street railway. Defendant accepted the franchise and all the terms and conditions imposed by the ordinance and subsequently constructed its car tracks and now operates its cars upon said streets in accordance therewith. Section 18 of the ordinance provides as follows:
"The common council reserves and shall possess the right at any time, and from time to time after January 1, 1892, to order the construction and completion by said Saint Paul City Railway Company of any new lines of railway * * * upon any and all streets in the city of St. Paul, upon which sewers shall have been constructed, and all lines or extensions so ordered shall be constructed and in operation within one year after such orders are made; provided, that when such new lines or extensions are constructed, all the provisions of this ordinance shall apply thereto."
Ordinance No. 2905, being the order of the city council requiring the construction of the new line, proceeds as follows:
"That the St. Paul City Railway Company be and it is hereby ordered and required, under and pursuant to Ordinance No. 1227 of the city of St. Paul, approved Sept. 20, 1889, and more particularly under and pursuant to section 18 of said ordinance, and within the time therein required, to lay and construct a double track line of street railway, with all necessary poles, wires and appliances for the operation thereof, upon St. Clair street from West Seventh street to Oxford street, and to properly connect the tracks thereof with the present tracks upon West Seventh street, and when so constructed to run and operate cars upon and over the same."
It is contended by defendant that no public necessity exists to support the order requiring the construction of the new line and that the order, in view of the facts pleaded in the answer, is unreasonable and therefore void. While the city contends: (1) That the order was based upon the contract obligation created by section 18 of the franchise ordinance, and is not dependent for its support upon the question of public necessity; and (2) that the facts pleaded in the answer of defendant wholly fail to present an issue upon the question of reasonableness, or of arbitrary action on the part of the common council in ordering the extended line.
1. We sustain the contention of defendant that, to authorize an order requiring an extension of the street car service under section 18, the common council must first determine that public interests demand and require the proposed improvement, and that, if no public necessity exists in fact, the extension cannot lawfully be ordered. While the franchise ordinance and defendant's acceptance thereof constitute a contract between the city and defendant, obligating defendant to comply with the terms and provisions thereof, the basis for its support is found in an exercise by the city of its municipal police power, and the contract should be construed in the light of and in harmony with the principles of law upon that subject. The law vests in the city of St. Paul the control and supervision of the public streets therein, and the authority to permit and regulate the construction and operation of street railways thereon. Its authority and power in this respect was involved and exercised in the passage of the ordinance forming defendant's franchise, and the obligations and rights there imposed and reserved should be held as imposing and reserving obligations and rights arising from its police power. Such was undoubtedly the intention of the parties, and was the view taken by the court in State v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 117 Minn. 316, 135 N.W. 976, and State v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 78 Minn. 331, 81 N.W. 200, both of which involved section 18 here in question. In the last case cited Judge Mitchell, speaking for the court, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial