E. Wis. Ry. & Light Co. v. Hackett

• Decision Date: 10 March 1908
• Citation: 115 N.W. 376,135 Wis. 464
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: EASTERN WISCONSIN RY. & LIGHT CO. ET AL. v. HACKETT.

135 Wis. 464

115 N.W. 376

EASTERN WISCONSIN RY. & LIGHT CO. ET AL.

v.HACKETT.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 10, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Winnebago County; Charles M. Webb, Judge.

Consolidated actions by the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company against the city of Oshkosh, and by the city of Oshkosh against the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff in the first action and for the city, and denying relief to defendant, the Winnebago Traction Company, R. H. Hackett, receiver of said defendant, appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Bashford, J., dissenting.

A suit by the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company against the city of Oshkosh and the Winnebago Traction Company to enjoin the latter from laying a second track on Main street in the city of Oshkosh, and from interfering with the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company in the laying of its tracks in said street, in which there were answer, cross-complaint, and counterclaim, and a suit by the city of Oshkosh against the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company and the Winnebago Traction Company to restrain the latter from violating certain ordinances of the city in the manner of constructing the east track across the Main street bridge, in which there were answers, counterclaim, and cross-complaint, were consolidated into one action, but without requiring new or amended pleadings to be filed. There was a suit tried before United States District Judge Quarles involving some of these same questions, which suit is brought to our attention in the briefs and oral argument. The judgment appealed from decreed: (1) That the Winnebago Traction Company is entitled to no relief. (2) That the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company has a right to lay a single track in South Main street from Ninth street to the Main street bridge over and upon Main street bridge to North Main street, and upon North Main street as far north as a point 135 feet north of the north line of Otter street, together with all necessary poles, wires, cables, and overhead work and other necessary appliances, and to maintain and operate the same in its business in accordance with the franchises, rights, and privileges granted to it by the city of Oshkosh. (3) Enjoins the Winnebago Traction Company, its officers, etc., from in any manner interfering with the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company in doing the things aforesaid. (4) Adjudges and decrees that each and every act of the city of Oshkosh set forth in the pleadings, or shown to have been done or performed, were lawfully done by said city. That its action in causing the removal of the tracks of the Winnebago Traction Company from the center of the street to the west was and is reasonable, proper, and lawful, etc. (5) Enjoins the Winnebago Traction Company, its officers, etc., from interfering with the city of Oshkosh in the exercise of its powers so declared, etc., and from attempting to remove its track in North Main street or in South Main street from the present location thereof to the center of the street, and from attempting to build or operate any switch or turn-out on Main street bridge or any crossover or diagonal track or crossing upon said bridge or the approaches thereof, and from constructing any other or further tracks in said streets without the further permission and consent of the city.

Among other references upon the part of the appellants were the following: State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Madison St. R. R. Co., 72 Wis. 612, 40 N. W. 487, 1 L. R. A. 771;Wright et al. v. Mil. E. R. Co., 95 Wis. 29, 69 N. W. 791, 36 L. R. A. 47, 60 Am. St. Rep. 74;Ashland St. R. R. Co. v. Ashland, 78 Wis. 271, 47 N. W. 619;Stedman v. City of Berlin, 97 Wis. 505, 73 N. W. 57;City Ry. v. Citizens' Ry., 166 U. S. 557, 17 Sup. Ct. 653, 41 L. Ed. 1114;Vicksburg W. Works Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65, 22 Sup. Ct. 585, 46 L. Ed. 808;New Orleans Water Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 674, 6 Sup. Ct. 273, 29 L. Ed. 525;New Orleans G. L. Co. v. La. L. & H. Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516;Africa v. Knoxville (C. C.) 70 Fed. 729; Detroit Str. R. R. v. Detroit, 64 Fed. 628, 12 C. C. A. 365;State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Janesville W. W. Co., 92 Wis. 496, 66 N. W. 512, 32 L. R. A. 391;Allen v. Clausen, 114 Wis. 244, 90 N. W. 181;State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Portage, 107 Wis. 441, 83 N. W. 697; State v. Mil. G. L. Co., 29 Wis. 454, 9 Am. Rep. 598;State ex rel. Rose v. Superior Court, 105 Wis. 651, 81 N. W. 1046, 48 L. R. A. 819; Railroad Co. v. Delmore, 114 U. S. 501, 5 Sup. Ct. 1009, 29 L. Ed. 244;Combes v. Keyes, 89 Wis. 297, 62 N. W. 89, 27 L. R. A. 369, 46 Am. St. Rep. 839;Underwood L. Co. v. Pelican L. Co., 76 Wis. 76, 45 N. W. 18;Willamette Mfg. Co. v. Bank of B. C., 119 U. S. 191, 7 Sup. Ct. 187, 30 L. Ed. 384;State ex rel. Badger I. Co. v. Anderson, 97 Wis. 114, 72 N. W. 386;Ohio C. R. R. Co. v. Central T. Co., 133 U. S. 83, 10 Sup. Ct. 235, 33 L. Ed. 561;Badger T. Co. v. Wolf River T. Co., 120 Wis. 169, 97 N. W. 907;Omaha H. Ry. Co. v. Cable T. Co. (C. C.) 30 Fed. 324;Id., 32 Fed. 727; Walla Walla v. Walla Walla W. W. Co., 172 U. S. 1, 19 Sup. Ct. 77, 43 L. Ed. 341;Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432, 24 L. Ed. 760;Ill. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28, 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 45 L. Ed. 410;Greenwoood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13, 26 L. Ed. 961;New Orleans G. L. Co. v. La. L. H. & T. Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516;St. Tammany W. W. Co. v. New Orleans W. W. Co., 120 U. S. 64, 7 Sup. Ct. 405, 30 L. Ed. 563;San Diego L. Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. 804, 43 L. Ed. 1154;Bienville Water Sup. Co. v. Mobile, 175 U. S. 109, 20 Sup. Ct. 40, 44 L. Ed. 92;Los Angeles v. Los Angeles C. W. Co., 177 U. S. 558, 20 Sup. Ct. 736, 44 L. Ed. 886;Consolidated W. Co. v. San Diego, 93 Fed. 849, 35 C. C. A. 631;Citizens' St. R. R. Co. v. Memphis (C. C.) 53 Fed. 715;Defiance W. Co. v. Defiance (C. C.) 90 Fed. 753;Mich. Tel. Co. v. Charlotte (C. C.) 93 Fed. 11;Huber v. Martin, 127 Wis. 412, 105 N. W. 1031, 1135, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 653, 115 Am. St. Rep. 1023; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Mil. R. & K. Elec. Co., 95 Wis. 561, 70 N. W. 678, 37 L. R. A. 856, 60 Am. St. Rep. 136;Zehren v. Mil. E. Ry. & L. Co., 99 Wis. 83, 74 N. W. 538, 41 L. R. A. 575, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844;Younkin v. L. H. & T. Co., 112 Wis. 15, 87 N. W. 861;Lange v. La Crosse, etc., Ry. Co., 118 Wis. 558, 95 N. W. 952;State ex rel. Adams v. Burdge, 95 Wis. 390, 70 N. W. 347, 37 L. R. A. 157, 60 Am. St. Rep. 123;State ex rel. Zillmer v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 90 N. W. 1098, 58 L. R. A. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934;State ex rel. Jones v. Froehlich, 115 Wis. 32, 91 N. W. 115, 58 L. R. A. 757, 95 Am. St. Rep. 894;State ex rel. Mil. Med. College v. Chittenden, 127 Wis. 468, 107 N. W. 500;Union P. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, etc., Ry., 163 U. S. 564, 16 Sup. Ct. 1173, 41 L. Ed. 265;Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Union P. Ry. (C. C.) 47 Fed. 15;Chicago Ry. v. Rio Grande Ry., 143 U. S. 596, 12 Sup. Ct. 479, 36 L. Ed. 277;Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. 243, 34 L. Ed. 843;Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Denver, etc., Ry. (C. C.) 46 Fed. 145.

Among other references upon the part of the respondents were the following: N. Y. & N. E. Ry. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. Ed. 269;Jackson Co. H. Ry. Co. v. Interstate R. T. Ry. Co., 24 Fed. 309;Cleveland R. Co. v. Cleveland (C. C.) 137 Fed. 111;Henderson v. Cent. P. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. 358;Pearsall v. G. N. Ry. Co., 161 U. S. 646, 16 Sup. Ct. 705, 40 L. Ed. 838;Pritzlaff H. Co. v. Berghoefer et al., 103 Wis. 359, 79 N. W. 564;Laycock v. Parker, 103 Wis. 161, 79 N. W. 327;Marshfield v. Wis. Tel. Co., 102 Wis. 604, 78 N. W. 735, 44 L. R. A. 565; C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 418, 72 N. W. 1118;Wabash R. R. Co. v. Defiance, 167 U. S. 88, 17 Sup. Ct. 748, 42 L. Ed. 87;Western U. T. Co. v. New York (C. C.) 38 Fed. 552, 3 L. R. A. 449;Wis., M. & P. Ry. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. 115, 45 L. Ed. 194;State ex rel. R. R. Co. v. Hilbert, 72 Wis. 184, 39 N. W. 326; Mil. & N. Ry. Co. v. Mil. L. H. & T. Co. (Wis.) 112 N. W. 672;Thomas v. R. R. Co., 101 U. S. 71, 25 L. Ed. 950;Gibbs v. Baltimore G. Co., 130 U. S. 396, 9 Sup. Ct. 553, 32 L. Ed. 979;Central T. Co. v. Pullman Co., 139 U. S. 24, 11 Sup. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55;Penn Co. v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 118 U. S. 290, 6 Sup. Ct. 1094, 30 L. Ed. 83;Denver & N. O. R. Co. v. R. R. Co. (C. C.) 15 Fed. 650.

Weed & Hollister (Charles Barber, of counsel), for appellant.

Bouck & Hilton (A. E. Thompson, of counsel), for respondent Eastern Wis. Ry. & Lt. Co.

W. C. Cowling, City Atty. (Edward M. Hyzer, of counsel), for respondent city of Oshkosh.

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

The pleadings are unnecessarily voluminous, covering 835 printed pages. Proper practice requires that when suits are consolidated the order of consolidation should require the title of the cause and the pleadings to be amended to conform to the order of consolidation. The practice here pursued of retaining all the original and amended pleadings in each action, and presenting them to the court as the pleadings in the consolidated action, cannot be approved. The argument took a very wide range, involving the claims on the part of the appellant: (1) That the city had no jurisdiction or authority to pass the resolutions complained of, because such resolutions impaired the obligations of existing contracts; (2) that the acts of the city were in bad faith, ostensibly for the public welfare but really in the interest of the Eastern Wisconsin Railway & Light Company, in order to get $35,000 agreed to be paid to the city by that company for its franchise or permit to use the streets; (3) that the resolutions as regulations were unreasonable under the circumstances, and hence invalid. These claims are denied by the respondents with great learning and ability of argument. It is pointed out by respondents that section 13 of...