Teachout v. Des Moines Broad-Gauge St. Ry. Co.,

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Citation75 Iowa 722,38 N.W. 145
PartiesTEACHOUT v. DES MOINES BROAD-GAUGE ST. RY. CO.
Decision Date17 May 1888

75 Iowa 722
38 N.W. 145

TEACHOUT
v.
DES MOINES BROAD-GAUGE ST. RY.
CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 17, 1888.


Appeal from district court, Polk county; MARCUS KAVANAUGH, Jr., Judge.

This is a proceeding under section 3408 of the Code, by which the parties thereto presented to the court below an agreed statement of facts, and sought the determination of the question whether the Des Moines Broad-Gauge Railway Company has legal power and authority to operate street railroads in the city of Des Moines by electricity or other motive power other than animal power. The issue presented by the agreed statement of facts was in the nature of an action in equity, and the object was to enjoin the Broad-Gauge Railway Company from expending its money and resources in applying the said motive power to propel its cars upon its railroad tracks now constructed, and from constructing other lines of road to be operated by said power. The Des Moines Street-Railway Company appeared, and sought to intervene in the proceeding. The right to intervene was denied, and upon a final hearing there was a decree enjoining the defendant from equipping and operating its lines of street railway, now in the streets of the city, with electric or other motive power other than animal power, and from expending the funds and moneys of said company in the construction of other lines of street railway in said city to be so operated. The defendant appeals from this decree, and the Des Moines Street-Railway Company appeals from the order denying it the right to intervene in the proceeding.

[38 N.W. 145]

Read & Read, for H. E. Teachout, appellant.

Parsons & Perry and Kauffman & Gurnsey, for the Des Moines Street-Railway Company, appellant.


Baylies & Baylies, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

1. This proceeding grows out of the litigation which originated between the Des Moines Street-Railway Company and the Des Moines Broad-Gauge Railway Company, two rival street railways in the city of Des Moines. It is in fact another feature of the contention between said companies which was so elaborately considered by this court in the case of Railroad Co. v. Railway Co., and other cases, 33 N. W. Rep. 610, and 35 N. W. Rep. 602. After the filing of the opinion on rehearing in the cases named, the city council, by certain resolutions duly passed, determined that the accommodation of the city, and the welfare of its inhabitants, required that improved motive power, other than animal power, and by which cars can he moved at an average speed of not less than eight miles an hour, should be used upon all broad-gauge street car lines then in operation in the city, and upon all present and future extensions of said lines; and,

[38 N.W. 146]

by an ordinance passed by the council, authority was given to the Broad-Gauge Company to change its motive power from animal power to electricity, or to such other motive power as may be found practicable to move its cars at the required rate of speed. These acts of the city council were done in pursuance of an application made by said railway company to the council. The plaintiff, Teachout, is a stockholder in the Broad-Gauge Company, and is surety for it upon some of its indebtedness. He was active in procuring permission from the city council to the company to change its motive power. After the permission and authority were secured, he instituted this proceeding, in which he claimed that the corporation in which he was a stockholder could not acquire any valid authority from the city council to operate a street railroad in said city by any propelling power. He was overruled by act of the corporation before this proceeding was commenced. The agreed statement of facts sets forth this matter of difference, and the question presented to the court for its determination was whether the city council had any power or authority to confer the right upon the company, in view of the decision of this court in the cases above cited. The Des Moines Street-Railway Company, being what is known as the “Narrow Gauge-Railway Company,” appeared, and filed what was denominated a “petition of intervention,” in which it was claimed that the proceeding was fictitious, and a fraud upon the rights of the Narrow-Gauge Company, and that it was not a real controversy between the parties, and demanded that it be dismissed. A motion was made by the parties to the proceeding to strike the petition of intervention from the files, for the reason, among others, that the cause had been submitted to the court for its decision, and that there was no right to intervene in the action, and make demands which would delay its determination. This motion was sustained, and the application to intervene was overruled; but, inasmuch as it had been suggested to the court that the controversy was not real and in good faith between the parties, it was ordered that the plaintiff and the officers of the Broad-Gauge Company appear at a time named, and submit to an examination touching the question of good faith and the real nature of the controversy, and that the Des Moines Street Railway should be permitted to appear, and examine the said parties touching the controversy, and to introduce other proof on said question material thereto. Thereupon an investigation was had, evidence was introduced, and the cause was submitted to the court, and at the same time, or about that time, another petition of intervention was filed by the Des Moines Street-Railway Company, in which a demand was made that it be allowed to intervene in the merits of the case. On the final submission the following orders were made:

“This cause having been heretofore submitted to the court by and between the parties, upon the written submission and statement of facts filed with the clerk on the 4th day of February, 1888, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that the equities are with the plaintiff, H. E. Teachout. It is therefore ordered and decreed by the court that the defendant, the Des Moines Broad-Gauge Street-Railway Company be restrained and enjoined from equipping and operating its lines of street railway, now laid in the city, with electric or other motor power other than animal power, and from expending the funds and moneys of said company in so equipping said line of road, or in construction, for operation in said city, other lines of street railway, and that the costs of this proceeding be taxed against the defendant. The Des...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 22, 1913
    ...title, came here later, and an opinion was filed, which is reported in Teachout v. Des Moines Broad-Gauge St. Ry. Co., 75 Iowa, 722, 38 N. W. 145; and still another at a much later date, the opinion being found in Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines, 90 Iowa, 770, 58 N. W. 906, 26......
  • State ex rel. County Attorney & Fullerton v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 22, 1913
    ...under a different title, came here later, and an opinion was filed, which is reported in Teachout v. Des Moines Broad-Gauge St. Ry. Co., 75 Iowa 722, 38 N.W. 145; and still another at a much later date, the opinion being found in Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines, 90 Iowa 770, 5......
  • Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • February 20, 1907
    ...was not a violation of the exclusive right to operate for 30 years by horse power. Teachout v. Des Moines Street Car Co., 75 Iowa, 722, 38 N.W. 145. The two companies disputed with each other and the city until 1889, when a settlement was effected by a consolidation resulting in the Des Moi......
  • Belknap v. Johnston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 27, 1901
    ...in [114 Iowa 273] this state, and as to all business done here it would no doubt be amenable to our laws. Teachout v. Railway Co., 75 Iowa 722; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Raymond, 70 Mich. 485 (38 N.W. 474). But appellant contends that as the association was licensed to do business in this s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State ex rel. Cnty. Atty v. Des Moines City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 22, 1913
    ...title, came here later, and an opinion was filed, which is reported in Teachout v. Des Moines Broad-Gauge St. Ry. Co., 75 Iowa, 722, 38 N. W. 145; and still another at a much later date, the opinion being found in Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines, 90 Iowa, 770, 58 N. W. 906, 26......
  • State ex rel. County Attorney & Fullerton v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 22, 1913
    ...under a different title, came here later, and an opinion was filed, which is reported in Teachout v. Des Moines Broad-Gauge St. Ry. Co., 75 Iowa 722, 38 N.W. 145; and still another at a much later date, the opinion being found in Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines, 90 Iowa 770, 5......
  • Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • February 20, 1907
    ...was not a violation of the exclusive right to operate for 30 years by horse power. Teachout v. Des Moines Street Car Co., 75 Iowa, 722, 38 N.W. 145. The two companies disputed with each other and the city until 1889, when a settlement was effected by a consolidation resulting in the Des Moi......
  • Belknap v. Johnston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 27, 1901
    ...in [114 Iowa 273] this state, and as to all business done here it would no doubt be amenable to our laws. Teachout v. Railway Co., 75 Iowa 722; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Raymond, 70 Mich. 485 (38 N.W. 474). But appellant contends that as the association was licensed to do business in this s......
  • 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