Township of Grosse Pointe v. Detroit & L. St. C. Ry.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1902
• Citation: 90 N.W. 42,130 Mich. 363
• Parties: TOWNSHIP OF GROSSE POINTE v. DETROIT & L. ST. C. RY. et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

90 N.W. 42

130 Mich. 363

TOWNSHIP OF GROSSE POINTE v. DETROIT & L. ST. C. RY. et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 22, 1902

Certiorari to circuit court, Wayne county; Joseph W. Donovan, Judge.

Mandamus by the township of Grosse Pointe against the Detroit & Lake St. Clair Railway, impleaded with the Rapid Railway and the Detroit, Lake Shore & Mt. Clemens Railway. From an order granting the writ, the defendants bring certiorari. Affirmed as to the Detroit & Lake St. Clair Railway, and reversed as to the Detroit, Lake Shore & Mt. Clemens Railway.

James H. Pound, for relator.

Gray &amp Gray and L. S. Trowbridge, Jr., for respondents.

MONTGOMERY C.J.

This is certiorari to review a peremptory writ of mandamus issued by the circuit court, on petition of the township of Grosse Pointe, requiring the Detroit, Lake Shore & Mt. Clemens Railway and the Detroit & Lake St. Clair Railway, two Michigan corporations, to comply with certain conditions of a franchise granted by the relator to the Detroit, Lake Shore &amp Mt. Clemens Railway, its successors and assigns, and accepted by said railway. By virtue of 2 Comp. Laws 1897, � 6448, the Detroit & Lake St. Clair Railway had purchased the railroad, franchise rights, and other property of the Detroit, Lake Shore & Mt. Clemens Railway, and was operating said railroad. The writ commands both respondents to maintain certain electric lights during the hours of darkness, while actually engaged in running cars, and to run a car over said line daily, except Sundays at such an hour that passengers thereon may make convenient connection at the terminus of said railway in Grosse Pointe Farms, with a car on the Citizens' line, reaching Woodward avenue, in Detroit, at 7 o'clock a. m., local time. The Detroit & Lake St. Clair Railway contends that the writ of mandamus should not have issued against it--First, upon the ground that the franchise or license of a town board is a mere contract, and 'does not rise to the dignity of a statute,' and therefore that the duty to perform the acts required by the writ is not a duty imposed by law, but a mere contractual obligation; and, second, upon the ground that it is not shown to have accepted the conditions of the franchise.

In City of Lansing v. Lansing City Electric Ry. Co., 109 Mich., at page 127, 66 N. W., at page 951, it was held that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a street railway company to comply with a city ordinance, requiring it to pave between its tracks. It is...