United Railroads of San Francisco v. City and County of San Francisco
| Decision Date | 21 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 282,282 |
| Citation | 39 S.Ct. 361,249 U.S. 517,63 L.Ed. 739 |
| Parties | UNITED RAILROADS OF SAN FRANCISCO v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Garret W. McEnerney and Wm. M. Abbott, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Messrs. Hiram W. Johnson and Thos. E. Haven, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
This is a bill in equity brought by the appellant to prevent the construction of a municipal street railway on Market street and adjoining streets in San Francisco with tracks on the two sides of the plaintiff's double track, for more than five blocks, and also to prevent the incidental cutting of the plaintiff's tracks. The appellant claims the right by grant and contract to forbid the proposed action and relies upon the Constitution of the United States, upon the State Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having first been made, and upon Article XII, § 2, of the charter of the city, requiring it to consider offers for the sale of existing public utilities before constructing new ones. The answer denies that damage to the plaintiff will ensue from the new tracks and denies as matter of law that the plaintiff has the contract or property rights alleged. On application for a preliminary injunction the District Court held that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case for it, and denied it, intimating an opinion against the plaintiff upon the matter of law involved. It then entered what is called a final decree denying all relief to the plaintiff with costs to the defendant. 239 Fed. 987. The present appeal is from that decree.
The franchise of the plaintiff to maintain, its two tracks on Market street was granted to its predecessor in title in September, 1879. At that time by section 499 of the Civil Code of California, 'two corporations may be permitted to use the same street, each paying an equal portion for the construction of the track; but in no case must two railroad corporations occupy and use the same street or track for a distance of more than five blocks.' The existence of this general law is the first ground relied upon for the assertion of exclusive rights in the street by the plaintiff. The other ground is the order of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco granting the franchise, and especially section 5 which is as follows:
We agree with the District Court that these sections did not give to the plaintiff the right it claims.
The section of the Code would seem to be a limitation of the powers conferred upon the Board of Supervisors by that and the adjoining sections, not a contract by the State, or an authority to the Board to contract, against a larger use of the streets. It most naturally is read as merely a general law declaring the present legislative policy of the State. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 138 U. S. 287, 292, 11 Sup. Ct. 201, 34 L. Ed. 967; Williams v. Wingo, 177 U. S. 601, 20 Sup. Ct. 793, 44 L. Ed. 906; Wisconsin & Michigan Ry. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379, 387, 24 Sup. Ct. 107, 48 L. Ed. 229; San Jose-Los Gatos Interurban Ry. Co. v. San Jose Ry. Co., 156 Fed. 455, 458, 84 C. C. A. 265, 13 Ann. Cas. 571. But however this may be neither that section nor section 5 of the order granting the franchise purports in terms to prevent the city from itself establishing a parallel road. If it be true, as the plaintiff argues, that the grant or contract in section 5 of the order means what the statute means and is to be construed by that, we have suggested what seems to us the natural construction of the act. But in any event it is decided by Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U. S. 22, 26 Sup. Ct. 224, 50 L. Ed. 353, that a covenant by a city not to grant to any other person or corporation a privilege similar to that granted to the covenantee does not restrict the city from itself exercising similar power; and it is assumed in that case, that the rinciple already is established as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sebastian Bridge Dist. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... v. MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. No. 6051.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.August 9, ... and from the commissioners to the county ... court. The assessors determined a horizontal ... Louis-san ... Francisco Railway Company v. Sebastian Bridge District, the ... The burden is upon the railroads ... to show that said assessments are unjust or ... the board-- John Ayers was a good man, the city of ... Ft. Smith never suffered a greater loss ... ...
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...such a judge had granted or denied a temporary injunction. This it has done in a number of cases. See United Railroads v. San Francisco, 249 U. S. 517, 519, 39 S. Ct. 361, 63 L. Ed. 739; Southern Iowa Electric Co. v. Chariton, 255 U. S. 539, 541, 41 S. Ct. 400, 65 L. Ed. 764; Galveston Elec......
-
City and County of San Francisco v. Market St. Ry. Co.
...those of appellee on Market Street. Appellee attempted, but failed, to prevent that construction. United Railroads v. San Francisco, 249 U. S. 517, 39 S.Ct. 361, 63 L.Ed. 739. At present there are three concerns furnishing street railway transportation. Appellee has 256 miles of track in th......
-
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. v. Handlery Hotel, Inc.
...Inc. v. Santa Cruz Met. Transit Dist. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 343, 347, 136 Cal.Rptr. 567; United Railroads v. City and County of San Francisco (1919) 249 U.S. 517, 521, 39 S.Ct. 361, 63 L.Ed. 739.) 19 , 20 Our conclusion MTDB did not act unreasonably or capriciously under the circumstances pr......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...Westlaw (database updated May 2021). 52. See generally ely, supra note 46, at 67–71. 53. See United R.R. of S.F. v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 249 U.S. 517 (1919) (franchise rights granted to a railroad company did not bar municipality from constructing and operating a parallel line); Wabash Ry.......